The Managing Director v. The Additional Commissioner Of Labour

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 30.09.2024

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA W.P.No.10533 of 2022 and W.MP.No.10222 of 2022 The Managing Director, Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Ltd , Pallavan Illam, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.

...

Petitioner versus

1. The Additional Commissioner of Labour, D.M.S.Complex, VI Floor, Teynampet, Chennai 600 006.

2.A.P.Babu ...

Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the order passed in P.G.A.No.19 of 2019 dated 12.10.2021 on the file of 1st respondent, Chennai-6 and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Gowthamraj For Respondents : Mrs.M.Jayanthi, AGP for R1 : Mr.S.T.Varadharajulu for R2 1/6

ORDER

The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging the order of appellate authority / the Additional Commissioner of Labour, Teynampet dated 12.10.2021 in P.G.A.No.19 of 2019.

2. Heard Mr.C.Gowthamraj, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.M.Jayanthi, learned Additional Government Pleader for R1 and Mr.S.T.Varadharajulu, learned counsel for R2 and also perused the materials available on record.

3.The 2nd respondent who is said to have been working as 'Security' with the petitioner corporation and he is retired on 29.02.2016 due to superannuation. As his gratuity subsequent to his retirement has not been settled and some deduction has been made in the gratuity amount payable to him. He has challenged the same by way of preferring an application in P.G.A.No.34/2016 under the Payment of Gratuity Act before the 1st respondent authority. After having rendered a finding that no deduction can be made in the gratuity amount payable to the 2nd respondent, an order has been passed in his favour. The same was challenged by the petitioner by way of preferring an 2/6

appeal and the appeal was also dismissed by confirming the order of the appropriate authority. In view of the action taken by the petitioner against the 2nd respondent on the allegation that he has caused revenue loss due to negligence, a sum of Rs.83,500/- has been deducted from the gratuity amount payable to him.

4. In fact the 2nd respondent has raised an industrial dispute in I.D.No.341/2004 challenging the punishment of recovery by alleging that he has caused revenue loss to the corporation. The labour Court has set aside the order of punishment and passed an award in his favour. When the management challenged the said award by way of filing Writ Petition in W.P.No. 2351/2015, this Court has passed the order by dismissing the same by upholding the award of the labour Court.

5. Since the recovery is consequential to his punishment and the punishment itself has been set aside, it is right for the authorities concerned to pass the order in favour of the 2nd respondent and it is also correct to render a finding that no deduction should be made in the gratuity amount payable to an employee. As the order of the appellate authority has been passed by rightly appreciating the order passed by the original authority and the materials 3/6

available on record, I find no reason to interfere. Thus, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. 30.09.2024 Speaking order / Non-speaking order Index : Yes / No : Yes / No jrs 4/6

To

1. The Managing Director, Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Ltd , Pallavan Illam, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.

2.The Additional Commissioner of Labour, D.M.S.Complex, VI Floor, Teynampet, Chennai 600 006.

5/6

R.N.MANJULA , J.

jrs W.P.No.10533 of 2022 and W.MP.No.10222 of 2022 30.09.2024 6/6