IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 17.12.2025

CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

The Management,

Coimbatore District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd.,

Rep. by its General Manager,

Bank Road, Coimbatore. .. Petitioner

Versus

1. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour,

(Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity

Act),

O/o.Deputy Commissioner of Labour,

Coimbatore.

2. V.Natarajan

3. S.Gopalakrishnan

4. R.Velusamy

5. S.Ekanathamoorthy 6. P.N.Ramanandham

7. P.Gunasekaran

8. A.Siluvai Rathinam

9. M.Ragupathy .. Respondents

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned common order passed by the first respondent, dated 25.09.2013 in G.A.Nos.23 & 24 of 2012 and G.A.No.36 to 41 of 2012 and quash the

same.

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Shanmugaraj Sethupathi For Respondents : Mr.A.M.Ayyadurai, Government Advocate, for R1 : No Appearance for RR-2 to 9

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed by the management, Coimbatore District Central Cooperative Bank Limited, with a prayer to call for the records relating to the common order passed by the first respondent, dated 25.09.2013 in G.A.Nos.23 and 24 of 2012 and G.A.Nos.36 to 41 of 2012 and to quash the same.

2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that these are the cases in which the employees of the management, after receiving their gratuity amount, had claimed for additional gratuity which has been allowed by the authority. The claim of the workmen is with reference to the manner of calculation of the number of years for the purpose of gratuity. If 26 days are to be reckoned as a month and the gratuity is calculated, then, if the balance four days is carried forward and consolidated, the management will be liable to pay additional gratuity and on that basis, the gratuity was calculated and ordered to be paid.

Challenging the similar orders, Writ Petitions were filed before this Court which were ultimately referred to a Full Bench. The following questions were referred to be answered by the Full Bench:-

“9. It is under these circumstances that the following three questions of law had been referred to be considered by a Full Bench:-

“(i) Whether 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 that Act?

(ii) Whether an employee would be entitled to gratuity for a period more than the total number of years that have been put in by him?

(iii) Whether the period during which an employee has worked in a primary agricultural co-operative society has to be taken into account while determining his entitlement for gratuity for his service in the concerned District Central Co-operative Bank when the appointment to the former had been made by the ad hoc committee of the latter?”

3. After considering the issues in detail, the Full Bench held as follows:-

“Reference No.1:

Whether 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 that Act?

Answer:

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 that Act.

Reference No.2:

Whether an employee would be entitled to gratuity for a period more than the total number of years that have been put in by him?

Answer:

An employee would be entitled to gratuity for a period more than the total number of years that have been put in by him, provided a Settlement under Section 12(3) or 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, or an award or agreement or contract between the employer and employees provides for better terms of gratuity and there is a mutually binding agreement that for calculation of gratuity, 26 days will be reckoned as month not only for arriving at pay, but also for calculat