Madras High Court
A.M.Loganathan vs The Presiding Officer on 21 March, 2023
1/5 W.A.No.272/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :: 21-03-2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHI
W.A.No.272 of 2023
A.M.Loganathan ... Appellant
-vs-
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court,
Vellore.
2.The Special Officer,
Abdullapuram Primary Agriculture Co-operative Bank,
Abdullapuram Village and Post,
Vellore Taluk & District. ... Respondents
Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order,
dated 01.04.2022, passed in W.P.No.23262 of 2013, on the file of this Court.
For Appellant : Mr.A.Deivasigamani
For Respondent 2 : Mr.K.V.Sajeev Kumar,
Spl.Govt.Pleader.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/5 W.A.No.272/2023
JUDGMENT
(By S.Vaidyanathan,J.)
This appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned single
Judge, dated 01.04.2022, passed in W.P.No.23262 of 2013, confirming the award of the
Labour Court, rejecting the reinstatement with full back-wages and other attendant
benefits.
2. Appellant, who was an employee under the second respondent Bank, was
placed under suspension on 02.02.2002, but, in the claim petition, he erroneously
mentioned that his suspension was on 02.02.2003. A copy of the order of the second
respondent Bank, placing the appellant employee under suspension, which is produced
before this Court, is dated 02.02.2002 and not 02.02.2003. Pursuant to the charges
framed against the appellant employee with regard to deficit stock and non-remittance
of amount, the appellant employee admitted the stock deficit and non-remittance of
amount. The Labour Court came to the conclusion that the employee held a position of
trust, where honesty and integrity were inbuilt requirements of functioning and,
therefore, it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently and misconduct in
such cases was to be dealt with iron hands and that in the case on hand the admission
with regard to deficit stock and non-remittance to the tune of Rs.4262.10 by the
employee, who was working in the respondent Bank, could not be dealt with leniently.
The employer also passed an order forfeiting the entire gratuity.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3/5 W.A.No.272/2023
3. The contention of the appellant is that the employer has taken an LIC
Policy as security, which is lying with them, and it cannot be detained but has to be
returned. He would also contend that for a typographical error committed by him with
regard to the date of suspension, he cannot be deprived of the wages for a period of
sixteen months till the date of order of dismissal, dated 16.06.2003. It is also his case
that he has contributed towards Provident Fund and the same has got to be refunded to
him together with employer's contribution and that forfeiture of gratuity by the
employer to the extent of Rs.36,450/- is bad.
4. We are not inclined to accept the contention of the appellant employee in
part. When misappropriation is admitted by the employee, the employer is entitled to
forfeit the gratuity in terms of Section 4 (6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act,1972, which
the employer has done correctly.
5. The Labour Court, based on evidence, came to the conclusion that the
amount, which was collected by the employee for the deficit stock, was not remitted and
that there was misappropriation, which finding of fact, affirmed by the learned single
Judge, cannot be assailed before us. Since the employee was dismissed from service, he
would be entitled to his share of contribution and he cannot demand employer's share of
contribution. Hence, we are of the view that the employee is not entitled to gratuity and
the employer's share of provident fund contribution towards Provident Fund. Therefore,
the order of the learned single Judge, confirming the award of the Labour Court, does
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4/5 W.A.No.272/2023
not call for any interference by this Court. However, the employer has to pay
subsistence allowance, which the employee is otherwise entitled to legally. Therefore,
the second respondent Bank is directed to pay subsistence allowance to the appellant
employee for the period of sixteen months i.e., from 02.02.2002 to 16.06.2003 at the
rate of 50% for the first 90 days; 75% for the next 90 days i.e., up to 180 days; and,
thereafter, 100% of wages till the date of dismissal, taking into account his salary as
Rs.4,050/- per month, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order. The LIC Policy, which was collected by the second respondent Bank towards
security, is directed to be returned to the appellant employee on or before 15.06.2023.
6. Writ Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No costs.
Index : Yes/No (S.V.N.,J.) (R.K.M.,J.)
Internet : Yes/No 21-03-2023
Speaking / Non-speaking Order
dixit
To
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court,
Vellore.
2.The Special Officer,
Abdullapuram Primary Agriculture Co-operative Bank,
Abdullapuram Village and Post,
Vellore Taluk & District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5/5 W.A.No.272/2023
S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.
AND
R.KALAIMATHI,J.
dixit
W.A.No.272 of 2023
21-03-2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
