RAJAMANI WIFE AND NOMINEE OF S RAJAOPALAN SINCE Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR AND APPELLATE
LAWS(MAD)-1996-8-49
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on August 22,1996

RAJAMANI, RAJAOPALAN Appellant
VERSUS
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THIS writ petition is for quashing the order of the first respondent dated October 20, 1986 in P. G. Nos. 5 to 9 of 1986 and to direct the second respondent to pay the amount of gratuity payable to the petitioners.
(2.) THE case of the petitioners is that originally they including the deceased V. Pitchai (3rd Petitioner) retired from service from Cauvery Spinning and Weaving Mill Limited (Now under Liquidation ). They have been working continuously without any interruption. Hence they were entitled for gratuity. The third respondent paid the amounts based on their arbitrary and illegal a calculations. Taking advantage of their superior and dominating position subsequently, the Labour Union Leaders advised them that the payment of gratuity was not in conformity with the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act. Management deleted certain years of service in total years of service on the ground that they did not work for 240 days in those years. Hence the petitioners filed claim petition before the second respondent. The third respondent contended that the gratuity paid to them was in full quit receipts Hence. They were precluded from claiming any further amounts. The second respondent directed the third respondent to pay the balance of gratuity to the petitioners. The third respondent filed appeals before the first respondent. By a common order dated October 26, 1986 the first respondent allowed the appeals on the ground that having passed full quit receipts, the petitioners were estopped from claiming any further amount. The order of the first respondent is illegal. During the pendency of the appeal, the third respondent company went into liquidation. The Official Liquidator, High Court has taken charge. Hence the writ petition is for the relief mentioned above.
(3.) NO counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.