Madras High Court
M.Valasubramanian vs The Executive Officer on 5 July, 2021
W.A.(MD)No.1268 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 05.07.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD)No.1268 of 2021
M.Valasubramanian ... Appellant/Petitioner
Vs.
The Executive Officer,
Arulmigu Chokkanathaswamy Temple,
Aruppukottai,
Virudhunagar District. ... Respondent/Respondent
Prayer : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order
passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.743 of 2021, dated 17.02.2021.
For Appellant : Mr.J.Lawrance
For Respondent : Mr.P.Mahendran
Standing Counsel
*****
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by T. S. SIVAGNANAM, J.)
Heard Mr.J.Lawrance, learned counsel for the appellant and
Mr.P.Mahendran, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1268 of 2021
2.This Writ Appeal, filed by the Writ Petitioner, is directed against
that portion of the order dated 17.02.2021 in W.P.(MD) No.743 of 2021, in and
by which, the Hon'ble Court restricted payment of interest on the belated
payment of gratuity amount from the date of order passed by the Controlling
Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act.
3.In terms of Section 7(3) of payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, the
employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the
date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable. The
appellant attained the age of superannuation on 31.05.2018. Therefore, the
Gratuity ought not to have been settled not later than 01.07.2018, but was not
settled and the appellant had to approach the Controlling Authority under the
Act for computation of Gratuity and an order was passed on 21.02.2019 to make
payment of Gratuity in P.G.No.128 of 2018. The said order has attained finality
and the respondent did not challenge the said order. Inspite of direction by the
Controlling Authority, since the Gratuity was not settled the Writ Petition was
filed. The Writ Petition was disposed of by directing payment of Gratuity, but
restricted payment of interest from the date of order passed by the Controlling
Authority. The correctness of the same is questioned before us .
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1268 of 2021
4.Mr.P.Mahendran, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the
respondent Temple submitted that the Temple is a Grade – II Temple and it does
not have resources. The Temple gets income from the rents collected from the
shops, but the shops owners did not pay the rent due to the COVID – 19
pandemic situation and all the other employees, who had retired earlier to the
appellant have not even claimed the Gratuity.
5.In our considered view, the objections raised by the learned counsel
for the respondent cannot be a ground to escape the rigor of the statute as
Section 7(3) prescribes the payment the amount within thirty days from the date
it becomes payable i.e., the date of superannuation. Section 7(3-A) states that if
the amount of gratuity payable under sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer
within the period specified in sub-section (3), the employer shall pay, from the
date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid,
simple interest at such rate, not exceeding the rate notified by the Central
Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that
Government may, by notification specify. Therefore, it is submitted by the
learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Writ Court ought not to have
restricted the payment of interest from the date of order passed by the
Controlling Authority.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1268 of 2021
6.The grounds urged by the respondent would not enable the
respondent Temple to get over the rigor of statutory provisions. That apart,
merely because some of the employees of the Temple, who had retired earlier
made no claim for Gratuity can hardly be a ground for not paying the Gratuity
to the appellant, more so, he obtained an order from the Controlling Authority
under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, which has attained finality as the
respondent Temple did not challenge the said order. The settled legal position is
that Gratuity is not bounty, but it is an amount to an employee in recognition of
the past services and becomes payable on the employees retired. Therefore, the
respondent Temple is bound to pay interest at the admissible rate.
7.It is submitted by the learned counsel on either side that the order
was passed by the Controlling Authority on 21.02.2019 and amount was
deposited before the authority by the Temple on 26.07.2019 and the interest for
the period from 21.02.2019 to 26.07.2019 has been computed and paid. In the
light of the statutory provision, the respondent Temple is bound to pay interest
from 01.07.2018 onwards. Therefore, for the period from 01.07.2018 to
25.07.2019, the respondent Temple is bound to pay interest to the appellant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1268 of 2021
8.The learned counsel appearing for the Temple submitted that the
financial position is precarious, more particularly, during the COVID – 19
pandemic and the Court may show some concession.
9.Without strictly applying any mathematical formula, on a rough
calculation we fix the interest at Rs.35,000/-, which shall be the full quit of the
claim to the appellant. Considering the financial position of the respondent
Temple, the said sum of Rs.35,000/- shall be paid in two equal installments, the
first of which shall be paid or or before 26.07.2021 and the second installment
shall be paid on or before 06.09.2021. In default, the appellant is entitled to
simple interest on the amount payable at the rate of 18% p.a.
10.The Writ Appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated above. No
costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
Index :Yes/No [T.S.S., J.] [S.A.I., J.]
Internet :Yes/No 05.07.2021
sj
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be
utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy
of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be
the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1268 of 2021
T. S. SIVAGNANAM, J.
AND
S.ANANTHI, J.
sj
W.A.(MD)No.1268 of 2021
05.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
