High Court · 2025

W.P.No.17353 of 2020IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (Special Original Jurisdiction) RESERVED ON : 13.03.2025PRONOUNCED ON : 22.04.2025PRESENT: THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE A.D. MARIA CLETEW.P.No.17353 of 2020 1.A.Palaniappan (deceased)2.Smt.D.Revathy, W/o. Late A.Palaniappan3.G.P.Praveen, S/o. Late A.Palaniappan4.G.P.Pradeep, S/o. Late A.PalaniappanP2 to P4 are residing atNo.45, Brindavan, Thillai Nagar, Gopichettipalayam,Erode District – 638 452 (P2 to P4 are substituted as L.R.s of deceasedP1 as per order dated 22.12.2023 in W.M.P.No.13860 of 2022 in W.P.No.17353 of 2020) ….Petitioners Vs.1.The Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and Addl. Commissioner of Labour, Coimbatore 2.The Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972Office of the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Salem.1/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17353 of 20203. The Management, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Coimbatore) Ltd,Erode Zone, Zonal Office, 45, Sennimalai Road, Erode – 638 001. ….Respondents Prayer in W.P. To issue a writ, or direction, in the nature of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records from the files of the Respondents 1 and 2 in P.G.No.151/2015 dated 09.04.2019 dismissing the Gratuity Application passed by the 2nd Respondent and order in P.G.Appeal AGA No.52/2019 dated 09.03.2020 partly allowing and partly dismissing the appeal passed by 1st Respondent and consequently direct the 3rd Respondent to pay gratuity amount of Rs.6,72,678.85 to the Petitioner with statutory interest within a time frame and pass such other order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.Appearance of Parties:For Petitioner :Mr.K.M.Ramesh, Senior AdvocateFor V.Subramani, S.Apunu, M.G.Martin Manivannan And V.Sivaraman, Advocates For Respondent R1 & R2 : Mr.R. Kumaravel, AGP For Respondent 3 : Mr.Murali Vinodh, Standing Counsel.JUDGMENTHeard 2. The present writ petition was originally filed by the Petitioner, who 2/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17353 of 2020was employed as a Junior Assistant with the 3rd Respondent Transport Corporation. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Petitioner passed away on 27.12.2021, and his legal representatives have since been brought on record. The petition challenges the order dated 09.04.2019 passed by the 2nd Respondent Controlling Authority in P.G.A. No. 151 of 2015 under the Payment of Gratuity Act, which was partly confirmed by the 1st Respondent Appellate Authority in AGA No. 52 of 2019 dated 09.03.2020. The Petitioner seeks to set aside the portion of the appellate order adverse to him and prays for a direction to the 3rd Respondent to pay the gratuity amount of Rs.6,72,678.85.3.When the writ petition was taken up for hearing on 03.12.2020, notice of motion was ordered. On behalf of the 3rd Respondent, a typed set of documents was filed, which included copies of orders passed by the Sub-Court, Gobichettipalayam, along with other connected records. It is not in dispute that the original petitioner was dismissed from service by an order dated 03.06.1999. The charge levelled against him was that he was responsible for instigating communal disturbances at the branch. Following the issuance of a charge memo and the conduct of a domestic enquiry—during which the petitioner was set ex parte—a second show cause notice was issued, culminating in his dismissal. Challenging this dismissal, the petitioner 3/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17353 of 2020instituted a civil suit in O.S. No. 113 of 1999 before the District Munsif Court, Gobichettipalayam, seeking a declaration that the disciplinary action initiated by order dated 17.07.1998 was illegal, and an injunction against the Branch Manager and the Deputy Manager (Law) of the 3rd Respondent Corporation. The suit was decreed on 03.11.2009. The petitioner also filed another suit in O.S. No. 175 of 1999 before the same court, seeking a declaration that the charge memo dated 12.02.1999 was illegal, along with a prayer for permanent injunction. This suit was also decreed in his favour on 03.11.2009.4.Notwithstanding the ex parte decrees obtained in the two suits, the petitioner secured as many as eight orders dated 03.11.2009 and 20.11.2009. Alleging non-compliance of those orders by the 3rd Respondent, the petitioner initiated contempt proceedings against several officers of the 3rd Respondent Corporation, including the Branch Manager, Deputy Manager (Legal), and the General Manager. Evidence was recorded before the District Munsif, and by a common order dated 04.11.2011, all the contempt applications were dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed seven Civil Miscellaneous Appeals, numbered C.M.A. Nos. 3 to 9 of 2012, before the Sub-Court, Gobichettipalayam. These appeals were also dismissed by a common order dated 23.01.2014.4/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17353 of 20205.After an inordinate delay of 26 years, the petitioner, through a registered trade union, raised an industrial dispute under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, before the Labour Officer, Erode, challenging his termination. As conciliation efforts failed, the Conciliation Officer submitted a failure report dated 19.06.2013. Upon receipt of the report and after due consultation with the Commissioner of Labour, the Government of Tamil Nadu, by G.O.(D) No. 449, Labour and Employment Department, dated 30.09.2014, declined to refer the dispute for adjudication before the Labour Court. The Government assigned as its reason that the dispute, pertaining to a dismissal order dated 30.06.1999, was raised only after a lapse of 26 years and, therefore, amounted to a highly belated and stale claim. It is not disclosed whether the petitioner has challenged the said Government Order before any forum.6.The petitioner also filed a claim petition before the Labour Court in C.P. No. 54 of 2011, seeking a sum of Rs.15,40,364.80, representing his back wages for the period from 21.01.1999 to 30.07.2011 along with interest. It is stated that the said claim petition is still pending adjudication. In the meantime, the petitioner submitted an application for gratuity by issuing Form-I to the 3rd Respondent Corporation on 17.07.2015, nearly 16 years after his dismissal. 5/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17353 of 2020Upon receiving no favourable response, he filed a formal claim before the 2nd Respondent under the Payment of Gratuity Act. The said petition was taken on file as P.G.A. No. 151 of 2015, and notice was issued to the 3rd Respondent Corporation. In response to the said notice, the 3rd Respondent filed a counter statement, which is undated.7.The 2nd Respondent Controlling Authority, by order dated 09.04.2019, dismissed the petitioner’s claim for gratuity on two grounds: firstly, the inordinate delay in making the claim; and secondly, that the petitioner’s dismissal from service attracted disqualification under Section 4(6)(1)(b)(i) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The said provision is extracted below for reference: –“4 (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1),-(a) omitted;(b) the gratuity payable to an employee may be wholly or partially forfeited (i) if the services of such employee have been terminated for his riotous or disorderly conduct or any other act of violence on his part”8.However, aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act before the 1st Respondent Appellate Authority. The appeal was taken on file as AGA No. 52 of 2019. 6/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17353 of 2020Upon issuance of notice to the 3rd Respondent Corporation and after considering the submissions, the Appellate Authority set aside the reasoning of the Controlling Authority insofar as it related to forfeiture of gratuity under Section 4(6) of the Act. In doing so, the 1st Respondent placed reliance on the decision of this Court in The Manager, Park Side Estate, Nonsuch Post, Coonoor vs. Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act / Joint Commissioner of Labour, Coimbatore, reported in 2011 (IV) LLJ 59, wherein it was held that a mere order of dismissal citing riotous or disorderly conduct would not by itself warrant forfeiture of gratuity, unless a separate and specific order of forfeiture is passed by the employer. Having held that the claim for gratuity was maintainable, the Appellate Authority granted relief in the following terms: –vdnt fPHik kd;wk; gzpf;bfhil tHf;F vz; g/bfh/vz; 151-”2015 ?y; 09/04/2019k; njjpapl;L tH';fpa[s;s cj;jut[ ePf;fwt[ (set aside) bra;ag;gl;L. vjpu;kDjhuu; - epu;thfk;. jkpH;ehL muR nghf;Ftuj;Jf; fHfk; (nfhit). <nuhL kz;lyk;. <nuhL. nky;KiwaPl;lhsu; - kDjhuu; jpU/V/gHdpag;gd; vd;gtUf;F tH';fntz;oa nkw;fz;lthW fzf;fPL bra;ag;ggl;l gzpf;bfhil bjhif U:/32.048-? (U:gha; Kg;gj;J ,uz;lhapuj;J ehw;gj;jp vl;L kl;Lk;) ,t;thizfs; fpilf;fg;bgw;w 30 jpd';fSf;Fs; nky;KiwaPl;lhsu; kDjhuUf;F tH';f ntz;Lbkd;W cj;jutplg;gLfpwJ/ ”7/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17353 of 20209.Having partially succeeded in the appeal, the petitioner has now approached this Court by way of the present writ petition, seeking a substantial amount towards gratuity, calculated from the date of his initial appointment up to the alleged date of superannuation. However, in doing so, the petitioner conveniently overlooks the fact that his dismissal from service by order dated 03.06.1999 has not been set aside or nullified by any competent court of law.10.Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Others v. Bal Mukund Bairwa, reported in (2009) 4 SCC 299, to contend that civil suits are maintainable against termination orders even in respect of government-owned corporations, and that recourse to the Industrial Disputes Act is not the only available remedy. However, the counsel appears to have conveniently overlooked the following crucial observation made in paragraph 28 of the very same judgment, which reads as follows: –“28. In a case where no enquiry has been conducted, there would be violation of the statutory Regulation as also the right of equality as contained in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In such situation, a civil suit will be maintainable for the purpose of declaration that the termination of service was illegal and the consequences flowing therefrom. However, we may hasten to add 8/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17353 of 2020if a suit is filed alleging violation of a right by a workman and a corresponding obligation on the part of the employer under the Industrial Disputes Act or the Certified Standing Orders, a civil suit may not lie. However, if no procedure has been followed as laid down by the statutory Regulation or is otherwise imperative even under the common law or the principles of natural justice which right having arisen under the existing law, sub-para (2) of paragraph 23 of the law laid down in Premier Automobiles Ltd. (supra) shall prevail.”11.The petitioner had failed to execute the civil court decrees, both before the District Munsif as well as before the Sub-Court. His subsequent attempt to raise an industrial dispute under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act through a trade union also failed, as the Government declined to refer the dispute for adjudication. Furthermore, the 2nd Respondent Controlling Authority also non suited the petitioner on the ground of inordinate delay—an aspect which was conveniently overlooked by the 1st Respondent Appellate Authority. In such circumstances, the partial relief granted by the Appellate Authority ought to have been treated as a fortuitous benefit, and the petitioner should have been content with that outcome instead of pursuing the present writ petition. This Court is of the view that the writ petition is devoid of merit and, but for the fact that the original petitioner is no more and the legal representatives have been brought on record, this is a fit case for imposing 9/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17353 of 2020costs. However, taking a lenient view, this Court refrains from doing so.12.This Court finds no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the 1st Respondent Appellate Authority. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 22.04.2025ayNCC : Yes / NoIndex : Yes / NoInternet : Yes / NoDR. A.D. MARIA CLETE, JayTo1.The Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 andAddl. Commissioner of Labour, Coimbatore(with records) 2.The Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972Office of the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Salem3. The Management, 10/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17353 of 2020Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Coimbatore) Ltd,Erode Zone, Zonal Office, 45, Sennimalai Road, Erode – 638 001. W.P.No.17353 of 2020 22.04.202511/11