Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs C.Selvaraj on 17 November, 2025
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
W.A.No.2614 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17.11.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SAKTHIVEL
W.A.No.2614 of 2025
and C.M.P.No.20886 of 2025
The Managing Director,
Tirupattur Co-op., Sugar Mills Ltd.,
Kethandapatti,
Thirupattur District – 635 815. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.C.Selvaraj
2.The Commissioner Sugar Corporation,
No.690, Anna Salai, Nandanam,
Chennai – 600 035. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, seeking
to set aside the order passed by the learned Judge in W.P.No.14649/2022
dated 03.06.2024.
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 01:45:03 pm )
W.A.No.2614 of 2025
For Appellant : Mr.M.Alagu Goutham
For R1 : Mr.S.Ezhil Raj
For R2 : Mr.R.Kumaravel,
Additional Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by M.S.RAMESH, J.)
In a connected batch of Writ Appeals, which has also been referred
to in paragraph 12 of the impugned order before us in W.P.No.14649 of
2022 dated 03.06.2024, the appeal filed by the Management in
W.A.Nos.361 of 2024 etc., batch dated 20.06.2024 was dismissed. The
said judgment reads as follows:-
“Challenging the common order made in
W.P.Nos.17795, 17779, 18330, 27317 and 2199 of
2022, the aggrieved respondents therein / Management
of Cooperative Sugar Mills, have preferred the present
writ appeals.
2. Brief facts that are required for consideration
of these appeals are as follows:
2.1. The appellants herein are the Management
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 01:45:03 pm )
of Cooperative Sugar Mills and the respondents are the
employees. The case of the appellants is that the
respondents are seasonal employees in the 1 st
appellant Management and they have completed more
than 27 years of service and their gratuity amounts
were collected as per Section 4 of the Payment of
Gratuity Act, 1972.
2.2. The appellant Management paid only 7 days
gratuity amount to the respondents as per the Gratuity
Act. However, the respondents claimed that they have
to pay gratuity for 15 days per year as per the Circular
issued by the 2 nd appellant dated 25.07.1990.
Therefore, the respondents approached this Court by
filing W.P.Nos. 17795, 17779, 18330, 27317 and 2199
of 2022, to pay 15 days gratuity amount to them. This
Court, allowed the writ petitions on 06.11.2023.
Challenging the said order, the present writ appeals are
filed by the appellant Management.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the
appellants submitted that as per Section 4 of the
Payment of Gratuity Act, the present respondents are
entitled to get gratuity only for 7 days and the
Government cannot issue a Circular dated 25.07.1990,
overriding the statute.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 01:45:03 pm )
4. Further the said Circular also precedes
another Circular dated 20.08.1997, wherein it was held
as follows:-
“ ... that the employees, who work as seasonal
employee throughout their service and retire as
same, are entitled to gratuity calculated at the
rate of 7 days wages for each year of completed
service, as provided under Section 4 of the Act,
except for years they worked for not less than
240 days in a year for which they have to be
paid gratuity, calculated at the rate of 15 days
wages for each years as per the provisions of
the Act, irrespective of the date of retirement.
Therefore, the learned Judge without considering
the disputed questions of fact, has wrongly come to a
conclusion to grant gratuity amount to the respondents
for 15 days per year.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for
the respondents had relied upon the similar cases and
submitted that when similar cases were taken on appeal
before this Court, this Court had dealt with Circular
dated 25.07.1990 and held that all those workmen, who
had put in more than 20 years of service, were directed
to be paid gratuity at the rate of 15 days wages per
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 01:45:03 pm )
year.
6. Futhermore, the learned counsel submitted
that the workmen involved in all these writ petitions are
also similarly placed and the judgment of Hon'ble
Division Bench is squarely applicable to these cases
also. Therefore, the learned Single Judge after
carefully scrutinizing all these aspects, has rightly
allowed the writ petitions, directing the appellants to
pay gratuity amount 15 days per year for their services
and therefore, prayed for dismissing the appeals.
7. Heard both sides and perused the materials.
8. Perusal of records would show that the
endeavour of the learned counsel for the appellants is
to convince this Court to state that the Circular dated
20.08.1997 was not taken into consideration, however
the learned Judge after going into the entire facts and
judgments relied on by the respondents, in that regard,
held that the said Circular was not placed for
consideration before the competent authority and
thereby, the learned Judge refused to accept the said
contention and pointed out that any Circular issued by
the Government will not deprive the benefits given to
the similarly placed persons and rightly reached a
conclusion to grant Gratuity for 15 days in a year.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 01:45:03 pm )
9. This Court, after carefully going through the
well reasoned order, is of the view that the appellants
have admitted that the respondents have put in more
than 20 years of service, however, as per the Circular,
the disputed question of fact is as to whether they
worked for not less than 240 days in a year and in that
regard, there is no materials available before this
Court to dispute the same. Since the respondents have
worked for 27 years as seasonal employees, they are
entitled to get Gratuity for 15 days and therefore, this
Court does not find any infirmity in the order passed by
the learned Judge and not inclined to interfere with the
same. Accordingly, these Writ Appeals are dismissed.
No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed.”
2. It is not in dispute that the claim of the workmen in the aforesaid
batch of cases is same as that in the present Writ Appeal. As such, we are
not in a position to take a different view from that of the judgment passed
by a Co-ordinate Bench, which is extracted above.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 01:45:03 pm )
3. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal stands dismissed in view of the
judgment passed in W.A.Nos.361 of 2024 etc., batch dated 20.06.2024.
No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[M.S.R, J.] [R.S.V, J.]
17.11.2025
Index: Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
Internet: Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Sni
To
The Commissioner Sugar Corporation,
No.690, Anna Salai, Nandanam,
Chennai – 600 035.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 01:45:03 pm )
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
R. SAKTHIVEL, J.
Sni
17.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 01:45:03 pm )
