BINNY LIMITED Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition is directed against the order of the first respondent/Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 dated 17.2.2005 and the consequential recovery notice issued by the third respondent dated 19.4.2007 and for a direction against the second respondent to hand-over vacant possession of the quarters, namely House No.6, Block No.'O', Venkateshwara Village, Chennai 600 012.

(2.) 2.1 The petitioner, which is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, is stated to have ceased to function from 15.6.1996. The second respondent was working in the petitioner/company and he was occupying quarters, viz., House No.6, Block No.'O', Venkateshwara Village, Chennai 600 012, pursuant to the deed of licence dated 9.2.1981. As per the licence, the second respondent should deliver vacant possession of the house to the petitioner within the time prescribed in the notice of termination of licence.

(3.) ON the other hand, it is the contention of Mr.S.Vijay Anand, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent that the petitioner/ company itself has entered a memorandum of understanding with the Madras Labour Union and B&C Mills Staff Union for the purpose of settlement of workers issues and one such understanding was that the individual plots measuring 500 sq.ft. each can be allotted by way of drawal and the petitioner/company, which has been closed, has also passed a resolution in this regard authorising the Company Secretary of the petitioner/company to execute sale deeds in favour of the members as per the memorandum of understanding and in respect of at least one person, Arumugam, such sale deed has been executed. Therefore, according to him, when the petitioner/company itself is taking efforts to allot the plots, it cannot be said that the second respondent is an unauthorised occupant. 5.2. It is his submission that the amount of gratuity payable to him is a statutory amount, which cannot be withheld under any circumstances. He would rely upon the judgments in A.Padmanabhan v. Joint Commissioner of Labour, [2009] 2 MLJ 560, Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited v. O.Raju and others, 2010 [1] CTC 595 and an unreported judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Steel Authority of India and another v. Taraknath Sengupta and others, (order dated 3.4.2009 in W.P.No.22336(W) of 2008) to substantiate his contention.