← Library
Madras High CourtWP/36785/2004allowed

The Management Of M/S.Seshasa- v. The Presiding Officer,

2023-01-03Honourable Mrs Justice J. Nisha Banu6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED 03.01.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU The Management of M/s. Seshasayee Paper and Boards Limited, Pallipalayam, Namakkal District.

.... Petitioner vs

1. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Salem.

2. K.Rathinasamy .... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to C.P.No.269/1999 on the files of the first respondent and the order passed therein dated 21.07.2004 and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mrs.S.Rita Chandrasekar for M/s. Aiyar & Dolia For respondents : R1-Court No appearance for R2 1/6

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the 1st respondent/Labour Court in C.P.No.269/1999 dated 21.07.2004.

2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: The 2nd respondent was working as a Sepoy(Watchman) in the petitioner Mill from 01.11.1962. On 23.07.1974, while he was on duty, he was found to have indulged in immoral sexual activities with a female inside the company. Thus, after issuance of charge memo and due domestic enquiry, he was dismissed from service by order dated 19.10.1974. The Union of which the 2nd respondent was a member, raised an Industrial Dispute challenging the dismissal order and the Labour Court in I.D.No.70/1975 passed an award dated 19.02.1976, rejecting the claim of the 2nd respondent and upheld the order of dismissal of the 2nd respondent. During the pendency of this writ petition, the Union which represented the 2nd respondent, proposed a compromise, which was accepted by the petitioner Management.

Accordingly, the petitioner was appointed afresh as an Attendant Gr.II, by order dated 30.08.1977 and the petitioner also joined service on 01.09.1977 as a fresh entrant. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent also retired from service on 31.05.1998.

from 01.09.1977 to 31.05.1998 only. Apart from payment of gratuity, vide settlement dated 29.08.1994, the petitioner Company has agreed to introduce Retirement Fund Scheme from 01.04.1994 by contribution of Rs.5/- per month from each employee to the retirement fund and the management will make the balance contribution so as to make a total amount of Rs.20,000/- for each case of retirement after superannuation, resignation etc. Towards payment of gratuity, the 2nd respondent was paid Rs.60,264/- as on 01.06.1998 and as per the terms of settlement dated 29.08.1994, he was paid Rs.30,000/-, an extra amount of Rs.10,000/- by way of leniency shown to the 2nd respondent. After receiving the same, the 2nd respondent claimed payment of Gratuity before the Controlling Authority in P.G. Application No.28 of 2000.

He claimed gratuity on the basis that the gratuity should be calculated from 01.11.1962 suppressing the fact of dismissal from service and joining the company as a fresh entrant under compromise on 1.9.1977. The Controlling Authority dismissed the claim of the 2nd respondent. Consequently, the 2nd respondent approached the 1st respondent alleging that he was not paid Rs.20,000/- as per the terms of settlement dated 29.08.1994. The first respondent directed the petitioner Management to pay the 2nd respondent Rs.20,000/- together with cost of Rs.200/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application of the 2nd respondent. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record. Though notice was served, there is no representation for the 2nd respondent.

4. Admittedly, the 2nd respondent was paid a sum of Rs.30,000/- on 28.11.1998. The case of the 2nd respondent is that the payment of Rs.30,000/- was towards the alleged total claim of gratuity of Rs.91,264/-. Since the receipt dated 28.11.1998 did not specify the payment of Rs.30,000/- including Rs.20,000/-, this Court is of the opinion that the first respondent would have found that the 2nd respondent is entitled for payment of Rs.20,000/-. However, the Controlling Authority, under the Payment of Gratuity Act, did not take into consideration, the Settlement under Section 12(3) dated 29.08.1994, and dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner seeking for payment of alleged difference of Rs.36,057.95 towards gratuity. Therefore, the sum of Rs.30,000/- paid to the 2nd respondent is referable only to the settlement dated 29.08.

1994 under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, this Court is of the view that impugned order passed by the 1st respondent/Labour Court dated 21.07.2004 is liable to be set aside. The 2nd respondent, having received the said sum of Rs.

paid a further sum of Rs.20,000/-.

5. In the result, the order passed by the 1st respondent in C.P.No.269/1999 dated 21.07.2004 is hereby set aside and the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 03.01.2023 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order vsi To The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Salem.

5/6

J.NISHA BANU,J.

vsi 03.01.2023 6/6