Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 31324

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T. VINOD KUMAR, J
The Managing Director, Dharmapuri District Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
The Appellate Authority / Additional Commissioner of Labour, (Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972) – Respondent
WP No.18678 of 2022 | WMP No.18026 & 18027 of 2022

Advocates:
For Petitioner: Mr.R.Balaramesh
For Respondents: Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal, Additional Government Pleader

Pre-deposit of gratuity amount mandatory under Section 7 for appeals; prior binding precedent upholds requirement.

Headnote:The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, particularly Section 7, mandates pre-deposit of computed gratuity amount for entertaining appeals before the Appellate Authority. Petitioner challenged order requiring pre-deposit for appeal against Controlling Authority's decision on gratuity payable to employee. Court found issue covered by prior judgment. Issues framed as whether Appellate Authority could waive pre-deposit under Section 7. Court held prior coordinate bench decision binding, dismissing similar relief sought. Writ petition dismissed; no costs; miscellaneous petitions closed.

Table of Content
1. challenges appellate authority's pre-deposit requirement. (Para 2)
2. prior judgment covers waiver of pre-deposit. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. binding precedent mandates dismissal of writ. (Para 6 , 8)

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

2. The present writ petition is filed at the behest of the Dharmapuri District Co-operative Sugar Mills Limited, Dharmapuri by the Managing Director, assailing the action of the Appellate Authority / Additional Commissioner of Labour, Coimbatore, in passing the impugned order dated 19.10.2020, directing the 2^nd respondent to entertain the appeal filed by the 3^rd respondent herein against the order dated 18.02.2020 without insisting upon pre-deposit of the computed gratuity amount payable to the 3^rd respondent herein in terms of Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

3. On 11.03.2026, when the writ petition was listed for hearing, Mr.R.Balaramesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted to this Court that the issue involved in the present writ petition appears to be covered by a decision of this Court and sought time to place on record a copy of the order and hence the matter was adjourned.

4. Today when the matter is listed, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before this Court an order dated 12.09.2023 in W.P.No.18381 of 2022 batch, wherein this Court had an occasion to consider a relief similar to the one sought for in the present writ petition.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner by placing the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, dated 12.09.2023, submits that since the issue stands covered by the aforesaid order, the present petition may not call for further adjudication.

6. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that this Court in the aforesaid decision placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, had considered the scope of Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 in detail and dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner herein itself. The learned Additional Government Pleader thus submit that the present writ petition has to fail.

7. I have taken note of the aforesaid submissions.

8. Since the issue involved in the present writ petition is covered against the petitioner by the decision of the coordinate bench of this Court dated 12.09.2023, the present writ petition has to fail. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document