[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
The Management vs The Controlling Authority on 23 January, 2026
Author: R.Vijayakumar
Bench: R.Vijayakumar
W.P.(MD).No.23840 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 23.01.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.P(MD)No.23840 of 2025
and
W.M.P(MD) No.25088 of 2025
The Management,
By its General Manager,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
(Madurai) Limited,
Bye Pass Road,
Madurai – 625 016. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Controlling Authority,
(Under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972
Appellate Officer)
Officer of the Additional Commissioner of Labour,
Madurai.
2. P.Kaveri
W/o.Late A.Pandian
3. P.Kannan
S/o.Late A.Pandian
4. P.Ponmanimuthu
S/o.Late A.Pandian ... Respondents
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/01/2026 04:05:46 pm )
W.P.(MD).No.23840 of 2025
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating
to the impugned order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Labour,
Madurai, in P.G.A.No.04 of 2025, dated 22.07.2025 and quash the same as
illegal.
For Petitioner : Mr.Ajmal Kzhan
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by
Mr.Gladson Micheal Rajadurai
For R1 : Mr.B.Saravanan
Additional Government Pleader
For R2 : M/s.P.Kaveri (Party-in-person)
For R3 and R4 : No appearance
ORDER
The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order passed
by the first respondent herein in P.G.A.No.04 of 2025, dated 22.07.2025,
wherein the order passed by the original authority has been confirmed.
2. The second respondent's husband was employed in the canteen run
by the petitioner/Transport Corporation. He had joined on 01.08.1988 and
was made permanent in the year 1992. He passed away on 13.08.2008. The
petitioner/Transport Corporation calculated gratuity for a period of 20 years
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/01/2026 04:05:46 pm )
from 01.08.1988 till August 2008 and disbursed the same to the second
respondent.
3. However, relying upon Clause 26 of the 12 (3) Settlement dated
06.02.2008, the second respondent had approached the authority under the
Payment of Gratuity Act for payment of gratuity for the period covering from
2008 to 28.02.2025, wherein the employee was expected to attain
superannuation. The request of the second respondent was acceded to by the
original authority and the petitioner/Transport Corporation was directed to
pay the balance gratuity amount. This order was put to challenge before the
first respondent. The first respondent relying upon the judgment of this Court
in W.P(MD) No.15181 of 2018, dated 20.11.2024 had dismissed the appeal.
Challenging the concurrent findings, the present writ petition has been filed
by the Management.
4. According to the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for
the petitioner/Transport Corporation, as per the Payment of Gratuity Act,
gratuity has to be calculated from the date of entering into service till the date
of death of the employee. Therefore, Clause 26 of the 12 (3) Settlement
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/01/2026 04:05:46 pm )
should only be interpreted to the effect that the gratuity should be calculated
as per the Act. The second respondent herein is claiming gratuity for the
period after the date of death of employee till the date of superannuation.
Such a request is not in consonance with the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
The learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that Clause 26 of
the 12(3) Settlement cannot be interpreted in such a manner, which is not in
consonance with the statutory provisions. The full service would only imply
the service including the temporary service of the employee and not the
service after the date of death of the employee.
5. The second respondent herein who appeared party in person
submitted that as per the Clause 26 of the 12(3) Settlement, the entire service
of the employee has to be taken into account, including the service which is
left after the date of death of the employe after the date of superannuation.
She further pointed out that the appellate authority has relied upon the
judgment of this Court in W.P(MD) No.15181 of 2018 dated 20.11.2024
wherein the same 12(3) Settlement has been interpreted by the Hon'ble Court
in favour of the employee.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/01/2026 04:05:46 pm )
6. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
7. The only issue that arises for consideration is the interpretation of
Clause 26 of the 12 (3) Settlement entered into between the Trade Union and
the petitioner/Transport Corporation on 06.02.2008. A perusal of Clause 26 of
the 12(3) Settlement reveals that in case of death of employees while in
service, the entire service period shall be taken into consideration for the
purpose of calculating gratuity. This Clause has been interpreted by this Court
in W.P(MD) No.15181 of 2018, dated 20.11.2024. Paragraph No.5 of the said
order is extracted as follows:
“5. Though the learned counsel for the
petitioner made submissions referring to the
Settlement made in the year 2010, no copy of the
same has been produced before this Court.
However, a copy of the 12(3) Settlement made in the
year 2008 is available before this Court which
states that in the event an employee dies during
service period, then, his legal heirs are entitled to
get gratuity for the period from the date of his
appointment till the date of his superannuation.
The first respondent took into consideration the
above aspect and directed the petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/01/2026 04:05:46 pm )
Management to pay a sum of Rs.82,987/~ together
with interest at the rate of 10% per annum. Under
these circumstances, I do not find any substance in
submissions of the learned counsel for the
petitioner and I do not also find any error in the
orders passed by the first respondent”.
8. Considering the fact that so far no appeal has been preferred by the
petitioner Management in the said writ petition and the same Management
has filed present writ petition and the interpretation relates to the same
Clause, this Court is of the considered opinion that no grounds have been
made out to interfere in the order passed by the first respondent herein, in the
light of the judgment of this Court cited supra.
9. There are no merits in this Writ Petition. Accordingly, this Writ
Petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently
connected Miscellaneous Petition stands closed.
23.01.2026
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
ebsi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/01/2026 04:05:46 pm )
To
1. The Controlling Authority,
(Under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972
Appellate Officer)
Officer of the Additional Commissioner of Labour,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/01/2026 04:05:46 pm )
R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.
ebsi
23.01.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/01/2026 04:05:46 pm )
