Madras High Court
The Management vs The Controlling Authority Under on 3 June, 2021
W.A.(MD)No.1061 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 03.06.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD)No.1061 of 2021
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.4745 of 2021
The Management,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Limited,
Bye Pass Road,
Dindigul Region,
Dindigul – 624 004. : Appellant
Vs.
1.The Controlling Authority Under
The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972,
(The Assistant Commissioner of Labour),
Office of Deputy Commissioner of Labour,
Dindigul.
2.R.Paulraj : Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent,
praying to set aside the order dated 27.11.2018, in W.P.(MD)No.3047 of
2018.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/6
W.A.(MD)No.1061 of 2021
For Appellant : Mr.J.Senthil Kumaraiah
For Respondent No.1 : No appearance
For Respondent No.2 : Mr.S.Arunachalam
JUDGMENT
***************
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.]
With the consent on either side, this Writ Appeal is taken up for
final disposal.
2.This appeal by the Management of the Tamil Nadu State
Transport Corporation is directed against the order dated 27.11.2018, in
W.P.(MD)No.3047 of 2018.
3.The said writ petition was filed by the appellant management,
challenging the order passed by the first respondent, who is the
controlling authority under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act,
1972, in a computation petition filed by the respondent workman before
the first respondent, which was taken on file as P.G.I.A. No.36 of 2014.
4.The learned Single Bench, after taking into consideration the
fact situation as recorded by the first respondent / authority, dismissed
the writ petition. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant Corporation is
before us by way of this appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1061 of 2021
5.The appeal filed by the appellant Corporation is liable to be
dismissed on two grounds:
(i)Firstly, as against the order passed by the first respondent,
the writ petition is not maintainable, as an appeal is provided under the
provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The appeal can be filed
only after the entire gratuity amount as computed by the controlling
authority is deposited in full. Therefore, the appellant Corporation could
not have by-passed the appeal remedy, which is a labour welfare
legislation. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as not
maintainable.
(ii) The second ground is on facts.
6.Learned Counsel for the appellant would urge that the period
of service for computation of the gratuity has been done incorrectly for
the period from 21.03.2000 to 20.03.2021, there was break in service and
therefore, the first respondent committed an error in including the said
period for computation of length of service for the purpose of gratuity.
This issue was considered as Issue No.2, by the first respondent and by
an elaborate and reasoned order, the contention has been rejected.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1061 of 2021
7.We find that the order passed by the first respondent is fully
justified, since during the period of unauthorised absence, no disciplinary
action was initiated against the respondent workman and there is no
order passed treating the period as break in service. In fact, the first
respondent has referred to the cross examination of M.W.1, who has
candidly admitted that no action was taken. Thus, on both the grounds,
we find that the appellant is not entitled for any relief.
8.Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
[T.S.S., J.] & [S.A.I., J.]
03.06.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
MR/RR
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.1061 of 2021
To
The Controlling Authority Under
The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972,
(The Assistant Commissioner of Labour),
Office of Deputy Commissioner of Labour,
Dindigul.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1061 of 2021
T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.
AND
S.ANANTHI, J.
MR/RR
JUDGMENT MADE IN
W.A.(MD)No.1061 of 2021
03.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
