SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 11411

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A.D. Maria Clete, J
Dharmapuri District Co-operative Bank Ltd – Appellant
Versus
G.Pushpam – Respondent
W.P.No.1951 of 2021|W.M.P. No.2207 of 2021



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P.Anbarasan, A.Karthikesan, A.Praveen Kumar, M.Meeenatchi
For the Respondents: K.Suresh, R.Thamaraiselvan

An employer may legally adjust and recover outstanding loan dues from an employee's terminal benefits, including gratuity, if the employee has voluntarily provided written consent for such deduction and local statutes authorize the recovery of pecuniary loss from retiring personnel.

Headnote:(A) Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - Section 4(5) and 4(6) - Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 - Section 48(7) and 87 - Recovery of loan dues from terminal benefits - Employee gave written undertaking consenting to adjustment of terminal benefits against outstanding loan dues - Validity of recovery vs statutory gratuity - Employer has right to adjust amounts due from terminal benefits when employee has voluntarily agreed to such adjustment - Non-obstante clause in special state legislation regarding recovery of dues from employees prevails - Forfeiture or adjustment of gratuity for pecuniary loss is permissible as per statutory provisions - Writ petition challenging surcharge proceedings does not invalidate underlying contractual liability. (Paras 5, 7, 21, 30, 31)

Facts of the case:
The employee retired after a long period of service. Prior to retirement, the employee submitted a written undertaking authorizing the employer to recover outstanding loan dues owed to a society from terminal benefits. Subsequently, the employee sought full payment of gratuity, claiming that the withholding was illegal. The lower authority rejected the claim, but the appellate authority allowed it, asserting that gratuity could not be withheld. Challenging this, the management filed the present petition, arguing that the adjustment was contractually authorized and supported by state legislation.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the employee had voluntarily agreed to the deduction of dues from terminal benefits. Relying on established precedents, the court held that an employer is entitled to recover pecuniary losses and loan dues from an employee's terminal benefits where such authorization exists. The court further clarified that while the gratuity act provides protection, it does not prevent the recovery of losses or authorized adjustments, particularly when state laws specifically empower such deductions in cooperative sector transactions.

Issues: Whether an employer can effectuate the recovery of outstanding loan dues from an employee's gratuity and terminal benefits based on the employee's prior written consent and prevailing state laws, notwithstanding the provisions of the gratuity act.

Ratio Decidendi: The express written undertaking provided by an employee to adjust terminal benefits against loan liabilities creates a binding contract, and state legislation allowing for such recovery of dues from cooperative society members prevails in such specific service contexts, rendering the adjustment of gratuity lawful. Result : Writ petition allowed; order of appellate authority set aside and initial order of controlling authority restored.

Table of Content
1. factual history regarding gratuity adjustment against employee liabilities. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
2. maintainability of legal challenges against surcharge proceedings under relevant forum. (Para 11 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
3. applicability and interplay of payment of gratuity act versus cooperative societies act regarding recovery of dues. (Para 12 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
4. final adjudication allowing adjustment of terminal benefits based on prior written undertaking. (Para 31 , 32)

J U D G M E N T

1.Heard.

2.The present writ petition has been filed by the District Central Co-operative Bank, Dharmapuri, challenging the order passed by the first respondent—Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972—in A.G.A. No. 45 of 2019. By the said order, the Appellate Authority allowed the appeal filed by the third respondent, set aside the order of the second respondent dated 22.01.2019 in P.G. Case No. 73 of 2018, and directed the petitioner bank to pay a sum of Rs. 5,41,025/- to the third respondent within 30 days. The order further stipulated that, in the event of default, interest at the rate of 10% per annum shall be payable on the delayed amount.

3.When the writ petition was taken up for admission on 02.02.2021, notice was accepted on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, and the Court directed issuance of notice to the third respondent. The third respondent has since entered appearance through counsel. Pending the writ petition, an interim stay was granted for a period of four weeks. When the matter was listed on 23.04.2024, this Court directed that the case be referred to the National Lok Adalat scheduled for 08.06.2024, for an attempt at amicable resolution. However, as no settlement could be arrived at, the matter was returned to this Court for final adjudication.

4.Subsequently, when the matter was listed on 05.11.2024, this Court directed that it be referred to the Tamil Nadu Mediation and Conciliation Centre for resolution. However, the mediation efforts were unsuccessful, and no settlement could be reached between the parties. Accordingly, the matter was returned to this Court with a covering letter dated 09.01.2025.

5.The primary contention advanced by the petitioner bank is that the third respondent joined its service on 09.01.1992 and retired on 31.01.2016. Shortly before her retirement, she submitted a letter dated 28.01.2016 stating that she had availed a loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- from the Co-operative Thrift and Loan Society, and that monthly instalments towards the loan were being deducted from her salary. As on 28.01.2016, an outstanding sum of Rs. 4,97,795/- remained payable by her to the society. In the same letter, the third respondent further agreed that if any surcharge was imposed on her in the pending proceedings under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, the same could be recovered from the terminal benefits payable to her, and the remaining balance disbursed thereafter.

6.In its reply dated 29.01.2016, the petitioner bank informed the third respondent that upon conclusion of the surcharge proceedings under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, and after determining the amount due from her, the dues would be adjusted against her terminal benefits, and the remaining balance would be paid to her. The third respondent, by her communication dated 30.01.2016, agreed to abide by this condition. However, she subsequently submitted another letter dated 14.02.2016, stating that she had received a sum of Rs. 1,45,000/- from the bank, but had not paid interest on the same. She accordingly requested the bank to adjust the said amount from her terminal benefits and release the balance due to her.

7.In response to the third respondent’s letter dated 10.08.2016, the bank informed her that payment of the terminal benefits would be made upon completion of the enquiry under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-opera

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top