Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 34053

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. Dhandapani, J
Maduranthagam Co-operative Sugar Mills Limited – Appellant
Versus
Additional Commissioner of Labour – Respondent
W.P.Nos.25398, 25876, 26943, 27157, 27240, 27506, 27508, 27561 and 27666 of 2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Haja Nazurideen, P. Haribabu
For the Respondents: S. Balamurugan, R. Murali, P.B. Suresh Babu

Gratuity calculations for employees of a closed industrial unit may exclude the period of actual closure where the unit was non-operational, provided the period is clearly defined and substantiated.

Headnote:The petitioner, a Co-operative Sugar Society registered under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, challenged orders regarding gratuity payments to former Non Muster Role employees. The petitioner contended that the mill remained closed from April 2001 to January 2012, and thus employees are not entitled to gratuity for this period under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The primary issue is whether the period of closure of the sugar mill should be excluded from the calculation of continuous service for the purpose of gratuity. The court observed the petitioner's submission that the mill was revived only in 2010 pursuant to a government order and that employees had no locus standi to claim gratuity during the closure period. The court directed the petitioner to pay gratuity from the date of initial employment until the date of application, specifically excluding the period of closure from January 2001 to 07.08.2010.

Table of Content
1. determination of gratuity claims for nmr employees in a co-operative sugar mill. (Para 1 , 2)
2. conflict between employer's claim of unit closure and employee's claim of lay-off for gratuity eligibility. (Para 3 , 4)
3. exclusion of specific closure period from gratuity calculation. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)

Prayer in W.P.No.25398 of 2025:

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the order of the first respondent dated 05.01.2023 made in PGA No.20/2021 on the ground of jurisdictional facts in terms of Sections 79 and 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 and quash the same with consequential direction to the second respondent to refund the gratuity amount of Rs.2,61,557/- relating to the third respondent – deposited by the petitioner Sugar Mill within the time to be stipulated by this Hon’ble Court.

Prayer in W.P.No.25876 of 2025:

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the order of the first respondent dated 05.01.2023 made in PGA No.13/2021 on the ground of jurisdictional facts in terms of Sections 79 and 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 and quash the same with consequential direction to the second respondent to refund the gratuity amount of Rs.3,09,383/- relating to the third respondent – deposited by the petitioner Sugar Mill within the time to be stipulated by this Hon’ble Court.

Prayer in W.P.No.26943 of 2025:

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the order of the first respondent dated 16.11.2023 made in PGA No.10/2022 on the ground of jurisdictional facts in terms of Sections 79 and 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 and quash the same with consequential direction to the second respondent to refund the gratuity amount of Rs.2,02,501/- relating to the third respondent – deposited by the petitioner Sugar Mill within the time to be stipulated by this Hon’ble Court.

Prayer in W.P.No.27157 of 2025:

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the order of the first respondent dated 16.11.2023 made in PGA No.07/2022 on the ground of jurisdictional facts in terms of Sections 79 and 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 and quash the same with consequential direction to the second respondent to refund the gratuity amount of Rs.2,85,845/- relating to the third respondent – deposited by the petitioner Sugar Mill within the time to be stipulated by this Hon’ble Court.

Prayer in W.P.No.27240 of 2025:

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the order of the first respondent dated 16.11.2023 made in PGA No.06/2022 on the ground of jurisdictional facts in terms of Sections 79 and 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 and quash the same with consequential direction to the second respondent to refund the gratuity amount of Rs.1,55,489/- relating to the third respondent – deposited by the petitioner Sugar Mill within the time to be stipulated by this Hon’ble Court.

Prayer in W.P.No.27506 of 2025:

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the order of the first respondent dated 16.11.2023 made in PGA No.08/2022 on the ground of jurisdictional facts in terms of Sections 79 and 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 and quash the same with consequential direction to the second respondent to refund the gratuity amount of Rs.2,00,018/- relating to the third respondent – deposited by the petitioner Sugar Mill within the time to be stipulated by this Hon’ble Court.

Prayer in W.P.No.27508 of 20

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 34053

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASM. Dhandapani, JMaduranthagam Co-operative Sugar Mills Limited – AppellantVersusAdditional Commissioner of Labour – RespondentW.P.Nos.25398, 25876, 26943, 27157, 27240, 27506, 27508, 27561 and 27666 of 2025

Gratuity calculations for employees of a closed industrial unit may exclude the period of actual closure where the unit was non-operational, provided the period is clearly defined and substantiated.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. Dhandapani, J
Maduranthagam Co-operative Sugar Mills Limited – Appellant
Versus
Additional Commissioner of Labour – Respondent
W.P.Nos.25398, 25876, 26943, 27157, 27240, 27506, 27508, 27561 and 27666 of 2025