The Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act has jurisdiction to decide disputes based on private settlements under the Industrial Disputes Act, which was clarified against contradictory views of the Appellate Authority.

ORDER :

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

Since the issue involved in these writ petitions are interrelated, they are heard together and disposed of by way of a common order.

2.The respective learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are the retired employees of Dharmapuri District Co-Operative Bank Limited/second respondent in W.P.No.31042 of 2014 and Kancheepuram Central Co-Operative Bank Limited/ third respondent in W.P.No.34486 of 2024 and after their retirement, the respective Bank did not pay gratuity amount to the petitioners in terms of the 12 (3) settlement entered by the respective Bank with the employees. Therefore, the petitioners approached the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, allowed their claims against which, the respective Bank filed appeal before the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act and the Appellate Authority held that the Controlling Authority has no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute in terms of the private settlement in between the parties under Section 12 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act and challenging the same, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions.

3.The respective learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further submitted that similar issue was considered by the Hon'ble Full Bench of the Madurai Bench of this Court in W.P.(MD) Nos.4844 of 2017 etc., batch [The Management, RK 10, Virudhunagaar District Central Co-operative Bank Limited] dated 30.10.2024 and held that the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act have the jurisdiction to decide the dispute in terms of the private settlement inbetween the parties under Section 12 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act and hence the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

4.Heard and perused the materials available on record.

5.The petitioners are the retired employees of Dharmapuri District Co-Operative Bank Limited/ second respondent in W.P.No.31042 of 2014 and Kancheepuram Central Co-Operative Bank Limited/ third respondent in W.P.No.34486 of 2024 and since the respective Bank did not pay gratuity amount to the petitioners in terms of the 12 (3) settlement entered by the respective Bank with the employees, they approached the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, allowed their claims against which, the respective Bank filed appeal before the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act and the Appellate Authority held that the Controlling Authority has no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute in terms of the private settlement inbetween the parties under Section 12 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

6.Similar issue was considered by the Hon'ble Full Bench of the Madurai Bench of this Court in W.P.(MD) Nos.4844 of 2017 etc., batch [The Management, RK 10, Virudhunagaar District Central Co- operative Bank Limited] dated 30.10.2024, the relevant portion of which reads as follows:

“73.In view of all the reasons, We answer Reference Nos.1 and 2 as follows: (1)the Controlling Authority under Section 7(4) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, can entertain a claim for better terms of gratuity made by the employee under Section 4(5) of the Act.

2)An employee would be entitled to gratuity for a period more than the total number of years that had been put in by him only in accordance with the terms of the settlement under Section 12 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, or as provided under Section 4(5) of the Act under any award or agreement with the employer and not otherwise.”

7.The decision cited supra makes it clear th