✦ Madras High Court

2022 The Managing Director,Dharmapuri District Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., Jerthalav Post, Palacode v. The Appellate Authority/ Additional Commissioner of Labour

T VINOD KUMAR3 min read

Case at a glance

Outcome

Dismissed

Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed

Key paragraphs

  • Para 66. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that this Court in the aforesaid decision placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, had considered the scope of Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 in detail and dismissed the…

Judgment

WP No. 18678 of 2022IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 25-03-2026CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMARWP No.18678 of 2022 andWMP No.18026 & 18027 of 2022 The Managing Director, Dharmapuri District Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., Jerthalav Post, Palacode Taluk, Dharmapuri District - 636 808. PetitionerVs1. The Appellate Authority/ Additional Commissioner of Labour, (Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972) Coimbatore – 18.

2.

The Controlling Authority, under the payment of Gratuity Act 1972, Office of the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Salem.

3.

K.RajagopalRespondentsPRAYER Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order, dated 19.10.2020 passed in A.Thi. Mu.No. 2669/2020 on the file of the 1st Respondent and quash the same and further direct the 1st Respondent / Appellate Authority under the payment of Gratuity 1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 18678 of 2022 Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) to entertain the appeal filed by the petitioner / Appellant against the order passed by the 2nd Respondent, Controlling Authority under the Act in the order dated 18.02.2020 in P.G.No.85/2019 without insisting upon the pre-deposit of the computed gratuity amount payable to the 3rd Respondent herein, in terms of Section 7 of the Act. For Petitioner: Mr.R.BalarameshFor Respondents: Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal, Additional Government PleaderORDERHeard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.2. The present writ petition is filed at the behest of the Dharmapuri District Co-operative Sugar Mills Limited, Dharmapuri by the Managing Director, assailing the action of the Appellate Authority / Additional Commissioner of Labour, Coimbatore, in passing the impugned order dated 19.10.2020, directing the 2nd respondent to entertain the appeal filed by the 3rd respondent herein against the order dated 18.02.2020 without insisting upon pre-deposit of the computed gratuity amount payable to the 3rd respondent herein in terms of Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 18678 of 20223. On 11.03.2026, when the writ petition was listed for hearing, Mr.R.Balaramesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted to this Court that the issue involved in the present writ petition appears to be covered by a decision of this Court and sought time to place on record a copy of the order and hence the matter was adjourned.

4.

Today when the matter is listed, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before this Court an order dated 12.09.2023 in W.P.No.18381 of 2022 batch, wherein this Court had an occasion to consider a relief similar to the one sought for in the present writ petition.

5.

The learned counsel for the petitioner by placing the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, dated 12.09.2023, submits that since the issue stands covered by the aforesaid order, the present petition may not call for further adjudication.

Operative part

6.

The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that this Court in the aforesaid decision placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, had considered the scope of Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 in detail and dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner herein itself. The learned Additional Government Pleader thus submit that the present writ petition has to fail.3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 18678 of 20227. I have taken note of the aforesaid submissions.8. Since the issue involved in the present writ petition is covered against the petitioner by the decision of the coordinate bench of this Court dated 12.09.2023, the present writ petition has to fail. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.25-03-2026vumIndex: Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderNeutral Citation: Yes/NoTo1.The Appellate Authority/ Additional Commissioner of Labour, (Appellate Authority under the payment of Gratuity Act 1972) Coimbatore 182. The Controlling Authorityunder the payment of Gratuity Act 1972, Office of the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Salem3.K.RajagopalS/o. Kaaliyappan Late. Jammana Halli Village and post, Pappireddypatti Taluk, Dharmapuri District 636 9044/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 18678 of 2022T.VINOD KUMAR J.vumWP No. 18678 of 2022 andWMP No.18026 & 18027 of 2022 25-03-20265/5

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 — s. 7; Gratuity Act, 1972; Constitution of India — art. 226.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Madras High Court or eCourts case status. ← Search more judgments