SPECIAL OFFICER Vs. P RAMALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED against the order dated 27.11.2008 made in W.P.(MD) No.9114 of 2008 the appellant/ the third respondent Cooperative Society has come forward with this appeal.

(2.) THE writ petitioner/respondent is the wife of one R.Pandian, who was working as salesman in the appellant cooperative society governed by the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act. According to the appellant during the course of inspection they found out deficiency of stock to the tune of Rs.79,932.65 for which, the deceased R.Pandian, husband of the writ petitioner/respondent was responsible. The main contention of the appellant is that in the liability register, the deceased R.Pandian himself has acknowledged the said liability and agreed to pay the said amount with 16% interest. Thereafter, he has also sought further time to make payment but before making the payment he died. Thereafter, as legal representative of the deceased R.Pandian, the writ petitioner/respondent made a request before the appellant for payment of the gratuity amount and the family pension amount. For which, there was a reply by the then President of the appellant Cooperative society on 11.08.1999 stating that out of the family pension, a sum of Rs.60,000/- was adjusted as the amount due as stated supra and as per the undertaking of the deceased, the adjustment was made on 24.11.1998 under receipt No.001543. Therefore, the appellant demanded the balance amount of Rs.19,932.65. The appellant also agreed that the gratuity amount due to the writ petitioner/respondent was Rs.20,935/-. From out of this, the balance of Rs.19,932.65 was also adjusted. Then, the appellant has claimed apart from this two amounts, there is a balance due to the society loan obtained by the deceased R.Pandian and finally an order was issued by the first respondent in the writ petition in his proceedings dated 28.04.2003 stating that the entire gratuity amount and the family pension amount have been adjusted and there still a balance of Rs.40,595.65 which is due from the deceased R.Pandian. The said notice was challenged by the writ petitioner/respondent in the above said writ petition.

(3.) SECONDLY he would also contend that there was no gratuity payable to the deceased person as the Payment of Gratuity Act has no application to the appellant bank as there was only less than 10 employees were working. More over, the bye-law did not provide for payment of gratuity. The employee was not entitled to any gratuity and the adjustment of the tentative gratuity amount allocated in the audit report was totally incorrect. Therefore, he would only contend that there is no reason for direction to refund to the adjustment amount as it literally meant allotting the gratuity for a person who is not entitled for gratuity. They would mainly contend that there was no fund established under Section 79 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act or Payment of Gratuity Act applicable or the Gratuity was payable under bye-law or other terms of service.