The Director v. The Joint Commissioner Of
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:01.03.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI W.M.P(MD).No.7646 of 2018 The Director, Gandhigram Institute of Rural Health and Family Welfare Trust, Soundaram Nagar, Gandhigram Post, Dindigul District. ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Joint Director of Labour/ Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Gajamalai Nagar, Trichy.
2.The Assistant Commissioner of Labour/ Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Nehruji Nagar 1st Street, Dindigul.
3.A.Murugesan ... Respondents 1/7
Prayer:Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, call for the records of the second respondent in P.G.No.81 of 2014 dated 06.11.2015 as confirmed on appeal by the first respondent in P.G.Appeal No.21 of 2016 dated 20.11.2017 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Karthikeyan for Mr.V.Vijay Shankar For Respondents : Mr.S.P.Maharajan Special Government Pleader for R1 and R2 Mr.D.Shanmugaraja Sethupathi for R3
O R D E R
This Writ Petition has been filed to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the second respondent in P.G.No.81 of 2014 dated 06.11.2015 as confirmed on appeal by the first respondent in P.G.Appeal No.21 of 2016 dated 20.11.2017 and quash the same. 2/7
2. The case of the petitioner is that the third respondent joined in the petitioner Trust on 05.07.1982 on consolidated pay and his service was regularized with effect from 01.11.1993 and he retired from service on 31.08.2014. Thereafter, he made an application before the second respondent/Controlling Authority, claiming gratuity amount for the period when he worked as temporary employee in the petitioner Trust. However, the second respondent has passed an order directing the petitioner Trust to pay a sum of Rs.2,37,473/- to the third respondent along with interest at 10% per annum. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner Trust, after depositing the said amount before the second respondent, has preferred an appeal before the first respondent/Appellate Authority. However, the first respondent has confirmed the order passed by the second respondent. Challenging the orders passed by the first and second respondent, the present Writ Petition has been filed.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the third respondent was given gratuity for 21 years of service rendered by him. However, he has made an application before the second 3/7
respondent claiming gratuity amount for the period when he worked as temporary employee in the petitioner Trust, without impleading the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India and Life Insurance Corporation of India. As per the relevant Rules, he is not entitled for gratuity amount for the temporary service rendered by him. However, without considering the factual aspects, the second respondent has passed an order directing the petitioner Trust to pay a sum of Rs.2,37,473/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Thirty Seven Thousand Four Hundred and Seventy Three only) to the third respondent along with interest at 10% per annum, as against which, the petitioner Trust preferred appeal before the first respondent. The petitioner Trust raised all the legal issues including lack of jurisdiction. But, the first respondent has confirmed the order of the second respondent vide its order dated 20.11.2017.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent would submit that in a catena of judgments, this Court held that the seasonal employee or non-provisional employee is entitled for gratuity amount and the orders passed by the Controlling Authority and the Appellate 4/7
Authority cannot be interfered with by this Court. Since the present writ petition is pending, the gratuity amount has not been disbursed to the third respondent.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent.
6. The facts in the present case are not in dispute. Admittedly, the third respondent retired from service on 31.08.2014 and he made an application claiming gratuity amount before the Controlling Authority, against which, the petitioner Trust has also preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority, after providing opportunity to the petitioner Trust and the third respondent, has passed orders in favour of the third respondent. Further, in the present case, no ground has been raised by the petitioner warranting interference of the well-considered decision of the Controlling Authority as well as the Appellate Authority. Hence, this 5/7
Court cannot re-appreciate the facts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the prayer sought for in the present writ petition cannot be granted.
7. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
01.03.2023 ssb NCC:Yes/No Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No To 1.The Joint Director of Labour/ Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Gajamalai Nagar, Trichy.
2.The Assistant Commissioner of Labour/ Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Nehruji Nagar 1st Street, Dindigul.
6/7
M.DHANDAPANI,J.
ssb 01.03.2023 7/7