BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Mummineni Sudheer Kumar, J.
Needle Industries (India) Private Limited - Petitioner
Versus
The Additional Labour Commissioner and ors. - Respondents
W.P.(MD)No.21989 of 2018 and W.M.P.(MD)No.19940 of 2018
Decided On : 25-02-2025
ORDER :
Mummineni Sudheer Kumar, J.
The brief facts that are relevant for disposal of this Writ Petition are as under:
The value of the dispute that arise for consideration in this Writ Petition is Rs.59,573/- together with interest at the rate of 10% with effect from 09.01.2006 i.e., the date of superannuation of the respondent No.3 herein towards the balance amount of gratuity as claimed by the respondent No.3. The petitioner herein is a Private Limited Company registered under the Companies Act and has factory at Nilgiris engaged in manufacturer of Needles. The third respondent herein while working in the petitioner company was dismissed from service by an order dated 04.06.1997 on certain misconduct. Aggrieved by the said dismissal order, the third respondent raised an Industrial Dispute vide I.D.No.92 of 2000 on the file of the learned Labour Court, Madurai. The learned Labour Court, Madurai by its award dated 19.03.2008 allowed the said ID revoking punishment of dismissal from service and ordering for payment of 25% of the monthly wages for the period during which the third respondent was out of service pursuant to the punishment in question till the date on which the petitioner attained the age of superannuation. The said order was passed in the context of the fact that the respondent No.3 has already attained the age of superannuation and therefore, the question of reinstatement of the third respondent into service on setting aside the punishment of dismissal from service does not arise.
2. Aggrieved by the said award dated 19.03.2008, the petitioner herein filed W.P.No.3362 of 2008 and the said Writ Petition was disposed of by an order dated 16.03.2012, directing payment of lump sum compensation of Rs.2 lakhs to the respondent No.3 herein. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.A.(MD)No.246 of 2012 and the said Writ Appeal was originally allowed by an order dated 22.06.2012 setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge dated 16.03.2012 and restoring the award passed in I.D.No.92 of 2000. It was thereafter, the matter was listed under the caption “for being mentioned” and during the course of hearing, it was agreed by the learned counsel on either side that the petitioner herein is liable to pay backwages at the rate of 25% in terms of the award and the same works out to Rs.1,40,142.85P and in the light of the same, the learned Division Bench permitted the petitioner and respondent No.3 herein to withdraw Rs.1 lakh each out of the amount deposited in the credit of I.D.No.92 of 2000 and left it open to respondent No.3 herein to workout his remedy for further claims by filing claim petition before the Labour Court. It was pursuant thereto, the respondent No.3 herein filed C.P.No.78 of 2013 claiming for certain backwages. However, the said C.P. Was dismissed by the learned Labour Court by an order dated 16.11.2018 in the light of the observations made by the learned Division Bench while disposing of W.A. (MD)No.246 of 2012 on the ground that the learned counsel on either side agreed on the quantum of backwages at the rate of Rs.1,40,142.85P. Simultaneously, the third respondent also made a claim for payment of balance gratuity amount before respondent No.2 the Controlling Authority under “the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972” (hereinafter referred to as “the Act 1972”) vide P.G.No.257 of 2016. In the said proceedings, though notice is served on the petitioner herein, the petitioner failed to appear nor filed any reply contesting the claim made by respondent No.3 herein. The respondent No.3 herein made a claim stating that his last drawn monthly salary is Rs.7,800/- and thereby claimed the gratuity for the entire service of 35 years rendered by respondent No.3 as Junior Clerk. The respondent No.2, by an order dated 10.01.2017 having examined the claim of respondent No.3, arrived at a conclusion that respondent No.3 is entitled for an amount of Rs.1,57,500/- towards gratuity and after deducting the amount of gratuity
The court upheld the entitlement of an employee to gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, emphasizing the need for employers to contest claims effectively to avoid default.
The entire duration of an employee's service is considered for Gratuity entitlements, and non-deposit of awarded Gratuity prevents appellants from successfully appealing against such claims.
Interpreting Act unequivocally indicate that payment of gratuity would not depend upon employee filing an application before employer demanding gratuity but will have to be paid immediately on cessat....
The availability of an alternate and efficacious remedy under the statutory provisions and the non-mandatory nature of the requirement of filing a written application for gratuity under Rule 7 of the....
Employer cannot withhold gratuity for unauthorized retention of quarters post-retirement; statutory interest of 10% applies for delayed payment.
1. Departmental proceedings cannot be continued and a penalty cannot be imposed after an employee has ceased to be in service, in the absence of a specific provision for continuation of the proceedin....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that in cases of wrongful termination of service, the employee must prove non-employment to claim back wages, and the employer has the burden to di....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.