BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 26.11.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI WP(MD)No.17963 of 2021 and WMP(MD)No.14835 of 2021 The Senior Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Thanjavur Region, Thanjavur.

...Petitioner Vs

1.The Additional Joint Commissioner of Labour, (Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act), Trichy.

2.The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, (Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act)

Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Trichy.

3.G.Sekar ...Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the impugned orders passed by the 1^st respondent in PGA.No.6 of 2019, dated 11.02.2020 reversing the order passed by the 2^nd respondent in PG.No.30 of 2018 dated 01.10.2018 and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Mohan Kumar, For Respondent : Mr.S.Arunachalam No.3

ORDER

The management of Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation has filed this writ petition as against the orders of the 1^st respondent appellate authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act in PGA.No.6 of 2019 dated 11.02.2020 reversing the order of the 2^nd respondent / controlling authority dated 01.10.2018 in PG.No.30 of 2018.

2.The 3^rd respondent claiming to be an employee of the petitioner corporation has filed an application before the 2^nd respondent seeking gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act (in short 'the Act') that he has rendered 36 years of continuous services in the petitioner corporation. The petitioner management has defended the application that the 3^rd respondent was engaged only as a seasonal employee and therefore, he is entitled for gratuity as per second proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act. Accordingly, gratuity has been calculated as Rs.69,004/ and the same has been paid to the 3^rd respondent. Considering the rival submissions, the 2^nd respondent authority has dismissed the application of the 3^rd respondent. However, aggrieved by that order, the 3^rd respondent has preferred an appeal in PGA No.6 of 2019 before the 1^st respondent claiming additional gratuity for the period of service rendered by him. The 1^st respondent has allowed the appeal by his order dated 11.02.2020 directing the petitioner management to pay additional sum of Rs.51,977/- to the 3^rd respondent towards the gratuity and therefore, the petitioner corporation has preferred this writ petition. 3.The learned standing counsel appearing for the petitioner corporation submits that the 3^rd respondent has been engaged only as a seasonal employee in paddy procurement centres. Therefore, he is not entitled for full gratuity amount as per sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act, but he is entitled for gratuity for a period of seven days for every season. The period of service rendered by the 3^rd respondent has been taken into service as per proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act for calculating gratuity and accordingly a sum of Rs.69,004/- was paid to the 3^rd respondent. Therefore, the controlling authority / 2^nd respondent has rejected the claim of the 3^rd respondent for full gratuity. However, the 1^st respondent has erroneously allowed the appeal filed by the

3^rd respondent directing the petitioner to pay full gratuity. The learned counsel further submits that the appellate authority has not considered the issue involved and has erroneously passed an order without any findings as to the entitlement of the seasonal employee for more gratuity than the gratuity amount, which is provided as per the provision to sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

4.The learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent submits that the

3^rd respondent has rendered continuous service in the petitioner management for a period of 36 years from 17.10.1980 to 30.09.2016. The continuous service has been defined under Section 2A of the Act. In th