Madras High Court
The Management vs S.Srinivasan on 8 December, 2023
Author: S.Vaidyanathan
Bench: S.Vaidyanathan
1/5 W.A.No.3426/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :: 08-12-2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
W.A.No.3426 of 2023
The Management,
Thuthikulam Primary Agricultural
Cooperative Bank Ltd.,
rep. by its Special Officer,
Thuthikulam Post,
Namakkal Taluk and District. ... Appellant
-vs-
1.S.Srinivasan
2.The District Collector,
Salem.
3.The Assistant Commissioner of Labour,
Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour,
Salem – 7. ... Respondents
Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order, dated
03.11.2022, passed in W.P.No.31328 of 2005.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/5 W.A.No.3426/2023
For Appellant : Mr.M.Muthusamy
For Respondent 1 : No appearance
For Respondents 2 & 3 : Mr.A.Selvendran,
Spl.Govt.Pleader.
JUDGMENT
(By S.Vaidyanathan,J.)
This appeal has been filed challenging the order of the learned single
Judge, dated 03.11.2022, passed in W.P.No.31328 of 2005.
2. Writ Petition was filed by the writ petitioner, first respondent employee
herein, questioning the order of recovery, dated 16.06.2004, passed by the management,
appellant herein. The management sought to recover the gratuity of Rs.32,227/- from
the respondent employee on the ground that excess payment was made.
3. Admittedly, the employee retired from service on 29.02.2000.
According to the management, entire amount has been paid, which is refuted by the
employee on the ground that there was a 12 (3) Settlement subsequent to his retirement
and the benefit of settlement was given effect from 01.07.1997 and that, in view of the
revision, he would be entitled to gratuity on the revised pay. The management disputed
the said fact stating that the employee did not work and, therefore, he is not entitled to
claim any amount.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. Aggrieved over the amount of gratuity, namely, the difference in amount
of gratuity, the employee approached the Controlling Authority under the Payment of
Gratuity Act,1972, in short, ''the Act'', and the said Authority granted the relief. The said
order has become final. The management has not preferred any appeal before the
Appellate Authority under the Act.
5. Though, normally, Writ is not maintainable against a Cooperative
Society, since the amount paid to the employee, which is sought to be recovered, falls
within the meaning of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, and that the same
cannot be recovered except in accordance with law, this Court can very well interfere
with the same under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
6. In this case, the employee had the benefit of the order of the Controlling
Authority under the Act. When that order has attained finality, benefit of the same has
to be extended to the employee and that there cannot be any recovery.
7. The learned single Judge, while dealing with the issue, had come to the
conclusion that the employee retired from service on 29.02.2000 and, after a period of
four years, the impugned order was passed without any prior notice calling for the
petitioner's objection for recovery of excess payment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the
learned single Judge. Writ Appeal stands dismissed accordingly. No costs.
Consequently, the connected C.M.P.No.28087 of 2023 is closed.
Index : Yes/No (S.V.N.,J.) (K.R.S.,J.)
Internet : Yes/No 08-12-2023
dixit
(2/2)
To
1.The District Collector,
Salem.
2.The Assistant Commissioner of Labour,
Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour,
Salem – 7.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.
AND
K.RAJASEKAR,J.
dixit
(2/2)
08-12-2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
