Back
2023 Supreme(Mad) 1236
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S. SRIMATHY, J.
The Management, Dinakaran Tamil Morning Newspaper, Represented by KAL Publications Private Limited, represented by its Authorised Signatory, V. Rajendran, Chennai – Appellant
Versus
The Joint Commissioner of Labour, Trichy & Others – Respondents
W.P. (MD)Nos. 8561 to 8564 of 2013 & M.P. (MD)Nos. 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3 & 3 of 2013
Decided On : 01-03-2023
For the Petitioner:M/s. M. Sneha, V. Karthikeyan, Advocate. For the Respondents:R1 & R2, C. Baskaran, Government Advocate, R3, N. Murugavel, S. Arunachalam, R4, M/s. J. Anandhavalli, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the subsequent purchaser under the Payment of Gratuity Act and the calculation of gratuity considering deductions and outstanding amounts.
Headnote:
Gratuity - Employer-Employee Relationship - Payment of Gratuity Act - [Gratuity] - [Employer-Employee Relationship] - [Payment of Gratuity Act, Sections 4, 7, 8, 9, 13] - The court discussed the employer-employee relationship and the liabilities under the Payment of Gratuity Act. It highlighted the calculation of gratuity, deductions, and the employer's liability, emphasizing the transfer of liabilities to the subsequent purchaser. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the share purchase agreement and the transfer of assets and liabilities to the petitioner company.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Chief General Manager of KAL Publications, contested the 3rd respondent's claim for gratuity, arguing that there was no employer-employee relationship between them and that the claim should be made against the erstwhile owner. The petitioner also claimed that the 3rd respondent owed them money and that the claim against them was not maintainable.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the 3rd respondent was eligible for gratuity after deducting the outstanding bill amount owed to the employer. It also considered loans and share amounts availed by the 3rd respondent against the gratuity. The court held that the petitioner company was liable to pay the gratuity amount to the 3rd respondent.
Issues: The issues revolved around the employer-employee relationship, liability for gratuity, outstanding bills, loans, and share amounts availed against gratuity.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the calculation of the gratuity amount, deductions for outstanding bills, loans, and share amounts, and the liability of the petitioner company as the subsequent owner.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were disposed of, and the court held that the petitioner company was liable to pay the gratuity amount to the 3rd respondent.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the order passed in P.G.Appeal No.12 of 2012, dated 31.12.2012, on the file of the 1st respondent and order passed in Payment of Gratuity case No.20 of 2008, dated 06.09.2011, on the file of the 2nd respondent and to quash the same.
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the order passed in P.G.Appeal No.03 of 2012, dated 31.12.2012, on the file of the 1st respondent and order passed in Payment of Gratuity case No.33 of 2006, dated 06.09.2011, on the file of the 2nd respondent and to quash the same.
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the order passed in P.G.Appeal No.11 of 2012, dated 31.12.2012, on the file of the 1st respondent and order passed in Payment of Gratuity case No.32 of 2006, dated 06.09.2011, on the file of the 2nd respondent and to quash the same.
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the order passed in P.G.Appeal No.10 of 2012, dated 31.12.2012, on the file of the 1st respondent and order passed in Payment of Gratuity case No.31 of 2006, dated 06.09.2011, on the file of the 2nd respondent and to quash the same.)
Common Order:
1. The writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.8561 of 2013, is filed for issuance of a writ of Certiorari, to quash the impugned order passed in P.G. Appeal No.12 of 2012, dated 31.12.2012, on the file of the 1st respondent and order passed in Payment of Gratuity case No.20 of 2008, dated 06.09.2011, on the file of the 2nd respondent.
2. The brief facts as stated in the affidavit filed in W.P.(MD)No.8561 of 2013 are that the petitioner is the Chief General Manager of KAL Publications Private Limited representing the Management Dinakaran Tamil Morning Newspaper. The 3rd respondent was an employee under the erstwhile employer namely KPK Publications and subsequent to the purchase of the Tamil Daily "Dinakaran" by KAL Publications during November 2005, those employees working during that time were taken over by KAL Publications Private Limited. When the KAL publications taken over the "Dinakaran" Tamil Daily, the 3rd respondent was not in service and hence, there is no employer-employee relationship between the 3rd respondent and the petitioner and hence the 3rd respondent cannot claim gratuity from the petitioner. If at all any claim is there, then the 3rd respondent shall claim by filing suit against the erstwhile owner and he cannot approach the Labour Commissioner against the petitioner. The petitions are not maintainable, since the Management of Dinakaran Daily Newspaper is not a legal entity and no order can be enforced against it. The said "Dinakaran Daily News Paper and few other magazines and dailies in particular "Tamizh Murasu", in which the 3rd respondent was working, are owned by KAL publications Private Limited and hence, if there is any claim, then it can be made against KAL publications alone. Moreover, the 3rd respondent having worked for "Tamizh Murasu" had made a claim against "Dinakaran" and the 1st and 2nd respondents without considering the same in a mechanical and erroneous manner allowed the claim of the 3rd respondent. The 1st and 2nd respondents failed to consider the fact that, for the calculation of gratuity only basic and dearness allowance alone should be considered. However, the 1st and 2nd respondents had taken into consideration the last drawn salary of the 3rd respondent as per the entry in the bank pass book for the month of August, which will include all benefits and emoluments. Moreover, there was money due to the petitioner from the 3rd respondent to a tune of Rs.21,529.25/- by way of advertising outstanding bill which the 3rd respondent had misappropria
