Madras High Court
The Management vs The Appellate ... on 29 September, 2023
W.A(MD)No.1608 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 29.09.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.A(MD)No.1608 of 2023
and
C.M.P(MD)No.12502 of 2023
The Management,
A-1257, Sholavandhan Urban Co-operative Bank Limited,
Represented by its President,
Cholavandhan,
Madurai District. ... Appellant/Writ Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Appellate Authority/Additional
Commissioner of Labour,
Under Payment of Gratuity Act 1972,
Madurai.
2.The Controlling Authority/Deputy Commissioner of
Labour,
Under Payment of Gratunity Act 1972,
Office of the Joint Commissioner of Labour,
Madurai-2.
3.K.S.Muthu Sapabathy ... Respondents/Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the
order dated 20.03.2023 in W.P(MD)No.23942 of 2019.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.J.Ashok
Additional Government Pleader for R1 & R2
Mr.B.Prahalad Ravi for R3
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.1608 of 2023
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.)
This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single
Judge, dated 20.03.2023 made in W.P(MD)No.23942 of 2022.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of this writ appeal are that
the third respondent herein was appointed as Night Watchman in the
appellant bank on 01.11.1985. Upon initiation of disciplinary proceedings
by order dated 15.07.1988, his services were terminated. The third
respondent raised an industrial dispute in IDOP No.322 of 1989 which came
to be dismissed by the Labour Court, Madurai by an award dated
27.04.1994. Upon challenge before this Court in W.P.(MD)No.6326 of 1995,
the award was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the Labour
Court for fresh consideration. Thereafter, by an award dated 18.03.2004,
the Labour Court set aside the termination of the third respondent and
directed reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages.
2.1 It is the case of the appellant when it was planning to
challenge the said award, the workman entered into on 18(1) Settlement
specifically agreeing that he will not make any claim regarding back wages
or any other monetary benefits for the period in which, he was not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.1608 of 2023
employed. Pursuant thereto, he was reinstated into service with effect from
20.09.2004. Thereafter, the third respondent voluntarily retired from service
with effect from 31.01.2007 and his gratuity amount was calculated by
excluding the dismissal period and he was paid a sum of Rs.2,09,548/- as
gratuity. However, the third respondent filed an application before the
second respondent, the Controlling Authority under the Gratuity Act
claiming a sum of Rs.3,49,245 being the balance gratuity amount. When the
said claim was resisted by the appellant, without considering the objections
of the appellant, the second respondent ordered the appellant bank to pay a
sum of Rs.3,31,784/- along with interest at the rate of 10% p.a., by an order
dated 27.12.2018. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred before
the first respondent, which was also dismissed by an order dated
22.10.2019. Aggrieved thereby, the instant writ petition was filed by the
appellant challenging the said award. While the learned Single Judge
interfered with the interest portion by reducing it as 8% p.a., the award was
upheld. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.
3. Mr.S.Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant would submit that by a specific 18(1) Settlement, the workman
had foregone that he will not claim any monetary benefits in respect of the
period in which he was under dismissal from service, there is no question of
claiming the said period as service for the purpose of calculation of gratuity
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.1608 of 2023
and accordingly, the order of the learned Single Judge requires interference
by this Court.
4. We have considered the said submission made by the learned
counsel and perused the material records of the case.
5. On a perusal of the 18(1) Settlement, it is clear that the
management itself had agreed to reinstate the third respondent in service.
The very word reinstatement by itself would mean that his earlier services
have to be taken into account. This apart in paragraph 2 it is specifically
mentioned that his previous services will be taken into account and the
salary is determined. Merely because it is mentioned in paragraph 3 that the
third respondent will not claim any back wages or monetary benefits, it does
not mean that the said period of service is excluded from his total length of
service for the purpose of calculation of gratuity.
6. Accordingly, we find that the contentions raised on behalf of the
appellant is totally untenable and the Original Authority, the Appellate
Authority and the learned Single Judge have rightly rejected the contentions
of the appellant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.1608 of 2023
7. In the result, the W.A(MD)No.1608 of 2023 is dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[S.S.S.R., J.] [D.B.C., J.]
29.09.2023
Index : Yes/No
NCC : Yes/No
sji
To
1.The Appellate Authority/Additional
Commissioner of Labour,
Under Payment of Gratuity Act 1972,
Madurai.
2.The Controlling Authority/Deputy Commissioner of
Labour,
Under Payment of Gratuity Act 1972,
Office of the Joint Commissioner of Labour,
Madurai-2.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.1608 of 2023
S.S.SUNDAR, J.
and
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
sji
W.A(MD)No.1608 of 2023
29.09.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
