The Managing Director v. The Joint Commissioner Of
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26.03.2018
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.No.6979 of 2018 The Managing Director, Maduranthagam Coop Sugar Mills, Padalam - 603 208, Kancheepuram District.
.. Petitioner Vs 1.The Joint Commissioner of Labour, Appellate Authority Under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, D.M.S. Compound, Teynampet, Chennai -6.
2.The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Controlling Authority Under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, D.M.S. Compound, Teynampet, Chennai -6.
3.The District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.
4.The Tahsildar, Maduranthagam Taluk, Kancheepuram Dt.
5.V.Mani 6.S.Kumar 7.S.Thiruvengadan 8.P.Jakkammal, W/o. (Pachaiyappan) 9.K.Saraswathi, W/o (Kannayiram) 10.N.Dorairaj 11.V.Ramesh 12.M.Haridoss 13.R.Vedachalam 14.J.Renugopal 15.R.Harikrishnan
16.E.Ravi 17.B.Kothandaraman 18.B.Elumalai 19.G.Kannivelu 20.E.Swamykannu 21.R.Chidambaram 22.N.Venkatesan 23.G.Kathavarayan 24.G.Shanmugam 25.S.Rashya 26.E.Thulukkanam 27.K.Sundaresan 28.C.Venu 29.P.Vedagiri 30.J.Jagannathan 31.P.Muralidoss 32.B.Rukmangathan 33.M.Chandraekar 34.K.Manoharan 35.A.Padmanabhan 36.V.Kuppusamy 37.L.Kannabiran 38.P.Subramanian 39.M.Elumalai 40.V.Muthukrishnan 41.S.Thirumalai 42.R.Dorairaj 43.V.Venu 44.D.Dhanapal 45.N.Veeraraghavan 46.M.Govindaraj 47.A.Sundarambal, W/o. T.Arumugam 48.M.Thulukkanan 49.P.E. Govindan (Retd.) 50.V.Perumal 51.M.Gopal 52.R.Dhanapal 53.M.Vedachalam 54.N.Kuselan 55.A.Kasthuri, W/o. Arulappan 56.R.Chakkaravarthi 57.M.Muthu 58.K.Raji 59.E.Perumal 60.S.Selvaraj 61.N.Arumugam 62.N.Muthuswamy 63.K.Rajasekar
64.T.Kathirvelu 65.K.Vengappan 66.Chellappan 67.Selvaraj 68.Govindan 69.Sundar 70.Balu 71.Govindaraj 72.Murugan 73.C.Mohan 74.Ramesh 75.M.Elumalai 76.K.Kuppusamy 77.K.Lakshmi 78.S.Chellam 79.A.Nagammal 80.V.Indirani 81.R.Bhavani 82.L.Nagammal 83.V.Gowri 84.S.Chinnammal 85.G.Yasoda 86.S.Chinthamani 87.M.Dhanam 88.V.Chellam 89.R.Panjali 90.A.Parvathi 91.V.Valli 92.K.Elammal 93.Chinnammal 94.G.Athiyammal 95.M.Sulochana 96.M.Krishnaveni 97.D.Paattammal 98.V.Seetha 99.K.Kanniappan 100.M.Sumathi 101.R.Venkatesan .. Respondents (Respondents 5 to 100, rep. By R-101 National Public Employees Union) Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the second respondent culminating in the order dated 03.05.2016 made in Lr.No.D1/0482/2016 and consequential order of the third respondent dated 09.03.2017 made in Lr.Na.Ka.No.10956/2016/U2 and quash the same.
For petitioner : Mrs.G.Thilagavathi, SC for Mr.R.Gophinath For R1 to R4 : Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan, Spl.GP
O R D E R
By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to quash the impugned proceedings dated 03.05.2016 passed by the second respondent / the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Chennai, demanding additional amount of Rs.13,73,276/- as well as the consequential demand notice dated 09.03.2017 issued by the third respondent / the District Collector, Kancheepuram District, demanding to deposit further sum of Rs.13,73,276/-.
2. It is submitted by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour dated 10.07.2015, the petitioner Management had deposited a sum of Rs.23,69,962/- on 13.10.2015 and had further deposited the interest to the tune of Rs.15,65,103/- on 29.03.2016.
Thereafter, the petitioner Management also preferred an appeal within the time stipulated before the first respondent, whileso, it is contended, the second respondent has no locus-standi to pass any further proceedings with regard to further interest. Since the appeal has been filed, if any interest amount is due, then the first respondent alone has to take a final call, therefore, it is pleaded, the impugned orders passed by the respondents 2 and 3 demanding to pay the additional interest is liable to be quashed. 3.
Mr.V.Jayaprakashnarayanan, learned Special Government Pleader, accepts notice for the respondents 1 to 4.
4. Prima-facie, this Court is able to see that as against the order passed by the second respondent demanding to pay the additional interest, the petitioner Management has preferred an appeal within the time stipulated and therefore, the said issue is now seized by the first respondent. It is also stated by the learned counsel for the parties that the respective parties have completed their arguments in the appeal preferred by the petitioner management before the first respondent and only the order alone has to be passed.
5. In such view of the matter, since the said issue has already been seized by the first respondent, the respondents 2 and 3 ought not to have passed the impugned orders demanding to pay the additional interest by the petitioner management. Accordingly, the same are quashed, however, this Court, without
going into the merits of the matter, directs the first respondent to dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioner management on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With this direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. No Costs.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar rkm To 1.The Joint Commissioner of Labour, Appellate Authority Under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, D.M.S. Compound, Teynampet, Chennai -6.
2.The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Controlling Authority Under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, D.M.S. Compound, Teynampet, Chennai -6.
3.The District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.
4.The Tahsildar, Maduranthagam Taluk, Kancheepuram Dt.
+1cc to Mr.R.Gopinath, Advocate, S.R.No.23090 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.23944 W.P.No.6979 of 2018 (CO) GSP(09/04/2018)