High Court · 2025

WP No. 1800 of 2024IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 19-11-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE N. MALAWP No. 1800 of 2024 & WMP.Nos.1327, 1329/2025 & 1858 & 1859/2025The Management Of No.K51,Kadanadu Pacc Society, Kadanau, The Nilgiris District.Petitioner(s)VsM.N.KundanS/o.Late.Sri.M.Nanjan, S3/186, Kadanadu Village And Post Udhagamandalam Taluk, The Nilgiris District-643 206.Respondent(s)Prayer:-Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned Award passed in CP.No.5/2022 dated 26.04.2022 on the file of the Labour Court of the Nilgiris at Udhagamandalam and quash the same.For Petitioner(s):Sp.Vijay NivasG.Saravana BhavanA.SanthanakrishnanFor Respondent(s):Mr.R.Sivakumar forM/s. Siva And Sesu Associates, J. Kishore, R. Anantha Lakshmi For Respt. Dt 23/09/20241 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 1800 of 2024ORDER(1)The writ petition is filed challenging the order of the Labour Court dated 26.04.2022 made in CP.No.5/2022.(2)Brief facts of the case are that the respondent was appointed in the petitioner Society, namely, Kadanadu Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society [KAPACCS] on 15.04.1983, as a Packer. Subsequently, he was promoted as Secretary. After rendering service for 31 years, the respondent retired from service on 31.07.2014. At the time of the respondent's retirement, the petitioner/Society could not disburse the terminal benefits of the respondent for paucity of funds. On the date of the respondent's retirement on 31.07.2014, the petitioner Society calculated the terminal benefits of the respondent at Rs.5,03,849/- towards Provident Fund and arrears of salary etc. and made good the same by transfer to the Savings Bank account of the respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner/Society did not settle the retirement benefits of the respondent. Therefore, the respondent preferred a complaint before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum in CC.No.17/2016, impleading the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies as a party respondent. In the aforesaid Consumer Complaint, a Memorandum of Understanding [MOU] was arrived at between the parties on 15.08.2016. As per the terms of the settlement, the respondent's entitlement towards pending service and retirement benefits as on 01.08.2016, along with eligible interest, 2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 1800 of 2024was arrived at Rs.10,86,129/-. The respondent's liability towards NDPACC Employees Cooperative Thrift and Credit Society, Udhagamandalam, was arrived at Rs.4,79,329/-, which included arrears of loan of Mr.K.R.Mani for whom the respondent stood as surety. After adjusting the liability towards aforesaid loan, the net amount payable to the respondent was arrived at Rs.6,06,800/- and as per the settlement, the petitioner/Society undertook to settle the amount on or before 31.10.2016, failing which the petitioner/Society undertook to pay interest at 12% per annum, from the date of execution of the MOU, i.e., 15.08.2016, till the date of realization. In terms of the MOU, the respondent withdrew CC.No.17/2016. Thereafter, the respondent herein filed CP.No.4/2022 under Section 33C[2] of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, before the Labour Court, Udhagamandalam. The Labour Court, Udhagamandalam, vide the impugned Order dated 26.04.2022, allowed the Claim Petition. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Labour Court in CP.No.5/2022, the petitioner filed the above writ petition for the aforesaid relief.(3)The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent could not produce the “No Instalment Pending Certificate” from NDPACC Society for the discharge of the loans availed by him and hence, the petitioner was not able to comply with the MOU. The learned counsel further submitted that the respondent owed a sum of Rs.8,23,553/- to the petitioner/Society towards the 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 1800 of 2024loan availed by him from the Society and was also liable to pay a sum of Rs.11,02,972/-, towards the loan borrowed by his friend K.R.Mani, for whom he stood as a guarantor. The learned counsel submitted that the order of the Labour Court directing the petitioner/Society to pay a sum of Rs.10,95,274/- to the respondent without considering the aforesaid loans, was illegal and liable to be set aside.(4)The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the Labour Court considered the aforesaid submissions and rejected the same on justifiable grounds. The learned counsel further submitted that the order of the Labour Court is well considered and therefore does not call for any interference in the writ petition.(5)Heard both sides and perused the materials on record.(6)The facts are undisputed. The only question is whether the order of the Labour Court in CP.No.5/2022 dated 26.04.2022 is sustainable or not?(7)The respondent filed CC.No.17/2016 on the file of the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, against the Deputy Registrar of the Cooperative Societies, Udhagamandalam, for non-payment of his terminal benefits. In the said Consumer Complaint, on 15.08.2016, a Memorandum of Understanding [MoU] was entered into between the petitioner/Society and the respondent. The terms of MoU read as follows:-4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 1800 of 20245 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 1800 of 20246 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 1800 of 2024(8)From a reading of MoU, in particular, Clause [4], it is clear that the petitioner/Society exonerated the respondent of the liability towards thrift loan and therefore, the insistence of “No Instalment Pending Certificate” for settling the terminal benefits, as rightly found by the Labour Court, is unsustainable. Further, as far as the loan of the co-employee Mr.K.R.Mani, is concerned, as rightly found by the Labour Court, the petitioner/Society has already initiated arbitration proceedings in ARC.No.3/2021 and therefore, the petitioner having already approached the appropriate Forum for remedy, cannot deny the respondent, his terminal benefits. The Labour Court, has considered all the issues raised by the petitioner/Society in proper perspective and has found that the respondent is entitled to the terminal benefits quantified at Rs.10,95,274/-. The petitioner/Society having committed itself to the payment of the terminal benefits to the respondent as per the MoU dated 15.08.2016, in CC.No.17/2016, cannot now try to wriggle out of its commitment.(9)This Court finds absolutely no infirmity or illegality in the order of the Labour Court and therefore, the writ petition lacks merit.(10)The writ petition accordingly is dismissed. The petitioner is directed to settle the terminal benefits of the respondent quantified at Rs.10,95,274/- at 9% interest per annum from the date of the order of the Labour Court, till the date of payment, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 1800 of 2024of a copy of this order and on such deposit, the respondent is permitted to withdraw the same on filing of appropriate petition before the Labour Court. No costs. Consequently, WMP.Nos.1858, 1859 & 1327/2025 are closed and WMP.No.1329/2025, seeking direction to the petitioner to deposit the award amount is ordered.19-11-2025APIndex:Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderInternet:YesNeutral Citation:Yes/No8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 1800 of 2024To1.M.N.KundanS/o.Late.Sri.M.Nanjan, S3/186, Kadanadu Village And Post Udhagamandalam Taluk, The Nilgiris District-643 206.9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 1800 of 2024N.MALA J.APWP No. 1800 of 2024 19-11-202510