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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 35869

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.SATHISH KUMAR, M.JOTHIRAMAN, JJ
The Management, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Limited – Appellant
Versus
The Controlling Authority, (Under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 Appellate Officer) – Respondent
WA(MD)No.548 of 2026 | CMP(MD)No.5128 of 2026 | W.P(MD)No.15181 of 2018



Advocates:
For Appellant: Mr.S.Gladson Michael Rajadurai
For R1: Mr.S.P.Maharajan, Additional Government Pleader
For R2: Mr.S.Arunachalam

Settlement terms providing gratuity up to superannuation on death override statutory provisions under Payment of Gratuity Act.

Headnote:Sections 4 and 5 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 provide that better terms of gratuity under any agreement supersede statutory minimums, with no requirement of five years' continuous service upon death. The management calculated gratuity for deceased employee's qualifying service excluding breaks, but the Controlling Authority awarded Rs.82,987/- up to superannuation based on 2008 settlement. The court upheld the award as the 2008 settlement's Clause 26 explicitly computes gratuity up to superannuation date on death. Issues framed include whether gratuity excludes service breaks and is limited to death date, and effect of non-produced 2010 settlement. Ratio: Settlements under Section 5 override statutory limits; Clause 26 binds parties, gratuity payable up to superannuation despite death, continuous service deemed met. Writ appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. background of gratuity dispute and prior proceedings (Para 2)
2. appellant's contentions on service breaks (Para 3)
3. statutory provisions on settlements overriding gratuity norms (Para 5)
4. settlement binds for superannuation-based gratuity; appeal dismissed (Para 6)

(Judgment of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.)

This Writ Appeal is directed against the order made in W.P(MD)No.15181 of 2018 dated 20.11.2024.

2. Challenging the calculation of gratuity of the deceased employee at Rs.82,987/- with interest at the rate of 10% per annum by the 1st respondent, the appellant management filed writ petition contending that based on the 12(3) Settlement arrived in the year 2008, gratuity was calculated by the 1st respondent, but as per the Settlement arrived in the year 2010, permission ought to be obtained from the Government for implementing the Settlement, as such, the gratuity arrived at by the 1st respondent cannot be granted to the legal heirs of the deceased employee. The Writ Court finding that copy of 2010 settlement has not been produced by the appellant management, declined to accept the contention of the appellant and dismissed the writ petition, against which, this appeal has been filed by the management.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the deceased employee rendered only 6 years and 10 months of qualifying service excluding the period of break in service and therefore, gratuity can be quantified for that qualifying period only and not for the entire alleged service of 27 years. He would further contend that the 1st respondent wrongly included the break in service while calculating gratuity. He would also submit that the gratuity would be payable only up to the date of death of the employee, whereas the impugned order directing payment of gratuity up to the date of superannuation, is contrary to the statute. Further, mere non production of 2010 settlement before the Writ Court would not justify the impugned order before it and therefore, sustaining the order of the 1st respondent calculating gratuity, by the Writ Court is liable to be interfered with and the writ appeal is to be allowed.

4. Heard both sides.

5. It is relevant to note that Sections 4 and 5 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, make it clear that nothing contained in Section 4 shall affect the right of an employee to receive better terms of gratuity under any award, agreement or contract with the employer. Though Section 4 provides that gratuity shall be payable on the death of an employee, it also stipulates that completion of five years of continuous service is not necessary where termination of employment is due to death or disablement. Further, Section 5 does not in any manner restrict the employer from extending better terms of gratuity under any award, agreement or contract.

6. In the case on hand, it is not in dispute that a 12(3) Settlement has been entered into between the Management and the employees. Clause 26 of the said Settlement clearly provides that, in the event of death of an employee during service, gratuity shall be computed by taking into account the period up to the date of superannuation. Once such a settlement has been arrived at between the parties, namely, the employer and the employees, the appellant cannot now contend that gratuity is payable only up to the date of death of the employee.

Therefore, we find no merit in the writ appeal.

7. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.

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