Madras High Court
The Management Of vs Additional Commissioner Of Labour on 6 January, 2025
Author: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Bench: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
W.P.No.105 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.01.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.P.No.105 of 2025
and
W.M.P.No.125 of 2025
The Management of
Home Tech Service Private Limited,
“Buhari Building”
No. 4 Moores Road,
Chennai - 600 006.
Rep. by its HR Manager. ... Petitioner
Vs
1. Additional Commissioner of Labour,
(Appellate Authority Under the
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972)
Labour Welfare Building, 6th Floor,
Teynampet, Chennai - 600 006.
2. Deputy Commissioner of Labour,
(Controlling Authority under the
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972)
Labour Welfare Building, 6th Floor,
Teynampet, Chennai - 600 006.
3. Daniel Arputharaj ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.105 of 2025
issuance of Writ of Certiorari Mandamus, to call for the records and quash the
order dated 30.10.2024 received in person on 10.12.2024 passed in
P.G.A.No.19 of 2024 on the file of the first respondent, Additional
Commissioner of Labour, Chennai, confirming the order dated 01.03.2024
passed in P.G.No.101 of 2024 on the file of the second respondent, Deputy
Commissioner of Labour, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Venkatesan
For R1 & R2 : Mr.K.Surendran
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
This writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated
30.10.2024, whereby the petitioner management is directed to pay balance
gratuity of Rs.34,327/-.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner management submits
that the only contention which is raised by the petitioner management is that a
loan amount of Rs.35,000/- is due from the workman and that the
management is entitled to adjust the same.
3. The payment of gratuity authority overlooked the said fact, in spite of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the same being specifically claimed. Reliance is also placed on the judgments
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in M/s.Steel Authority of India
Limited vs. Raghbendra Singh and Ashok Kumar Pandey vs M/s. Bharat
Coking Coal Limited.
4. I have considered the said submissions made by the learned counsel
for the petitioner.
5. It is true that in some fact situations, the Courts have held that the
gratuity amount can also be withheld and has been held that it is liable for
protection in some fact situations. However, considering the quantum of the
amount which is awarded (i.e.) Rs.34,327/-, it may not be appropriate for this
Court to interfere with the order of the authorities. Needless to mention that
the petitioner management can pay the said amount and the loan amount is
due can very well be recovered in the manner known to law by appropriate
legal means. Only considering the quantum of the amount involved, this Court
is not interfering with the matter without going into the question with
reference to the recoverability or adjustability in accordance with law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. In view thereof, this writ petition is disposed of. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
06.01.2025
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
nsl
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
nsl
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. Additional Commissioner of Labour,
(Appellate Authority Under the
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972)
Labour Welfare Building, 6th Floor,
Teynampet, Chennai - 600 006.
2. Deputy Commissioner of Labour,
(Controlling Authority under the
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972)
Labour Welfare Building, 6th Floor,
Teynampet, Chennai - 600 006.
06.01.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
