Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court Illicit Affair Alone Cannot Make a Man Guilty of Abetting Suicide: Supreme Court Quashes Charge Under Section 306 IPC Landlord Cannot Be Punished for Slowness of Courts: Supreme Court on Bonafide Need in Eviction Suits Expect States To Enact Laws Regulating Unlicensed Money Lenders Charging Exorbitant Interest Contrary To 'Damdupat': Supreme Court Accused Who Skips Lok Adalat After Seeking It, Then Cries 'Prejudice', Cannot Claim Apprehension of Denial of Justice: Madras High Court Refuse To Transfer Case IO Cannot Act Without Prior Sanction: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail, Flags Procedural Lapse in Religious Conversion Case Electricity Board Strictly Liable For Unprotected Transformer, 7-Year-Old Cannot Be Guilty Of Contributory Negligence: Allahabad High Court POCSO Conviction Can't Stand For Offence Not Charged: Delhi High Court Member of Unlawful Assembly Cannot Escape Conviction By Claiming He Only Carried a Lathi and Struck No One: Allahabad High Court Jurisdiction Cannot Be Founded On Casual Or Incidental Facts If Not Have A Direct Nexus With The Lis: : Delhi High Court Clause Stating Disputes "Can" Be Settled By Arbitration Is Not A Binding Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court State Cannot Plead Helplessness Against Sand Mafia; Supreme Court Warns Of Paramilitary Deployment, Complete Mining Ban In MP & Rajasthan Authority Cannot Withdraw Subsidy Citing Non-Compliance When It Ignored Repeated Requests For Inspection: Supreme Court Out-of-State SC/ST/OBC Candidates Cannot Claim Rajasthan's Reservation Benefits in NEET PG Counselling: Rajasthan High Court Supreme Court Upholds Haryana's Regularisation Of Qualified Ad Hoc Staff As 'One-Time Measure', Strikes Down Futuristic Cut-Offs

Bank's First Charge Does Not Negate Workers' Statutory Rights: Madras High Court Rules Bank Liable for Gratuity Payments in Liquidation

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


 

In a significant ruling, the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) presided over by the Honourable Mrs. Justice S. Srimathy, addressed a complex legal issue involving the Indian Overseas Bank and the employees of the defunct M/s. Thiruchendur Murugan Spinning Mills. The judgment, delivered on 16th February 2024, pertains to W.P.(MD)Nos.16714, 17225, 20679, 20681, and 21320 of 2014, focusing on the dispute over gratuity payments to the employees of the closed mill, which had its assets possessed by the bank for loan recovery.

 

 

At the heart of this case was the determination of liability for gratuity payments under the Payment of Gratuity Act, especially when a bank, as a secured creditor under the SARFAESI Act, takes over the assets of a defunct company. The court examined whether the Indian Overseas Bank, having control over the assets of M/s. Thiruchendur Murugan Spinning Mills, was liable to pay gratuity to its former employees.

 

 

 M/s. Thiruchendur Murugan Spinning Mills, after failing to repay a loan of Rs. 2,20,00,000 taken in 1994, was declared a non-performing asset. The bank subsequently took possession of the company’s properties under the SARFAESI Act. The employees, left jobless since 1995, filed gratuity applications against the mill and the bank. The bank, however, contended that it was merely a secured creditor and not liable for the gratuity payments, as there was no direct employer-employee relationship.

 

 

Justice Srimathy meticulously analyzed the interplay between the SARFAESI Act and the Payment of Gratuity Act. She observed, “Even though the bank is not the direct employer, it has control over the assets of the company, thereby owing gratuity payments.” The court recognized that the bank and employees have equal charge (Pari passu) over the assets, debunking the bank’s argument that SARFAESI Act’s provisions override the Payment of Gratuity Act.

 

 

The judge further noted, "The workers' dues are a statutory liability, and both SARFAESI and Indian Companies Act grant protection to these dues, placing them on par with the secured creditor’s claim.”

 

 

Concluding her judgment, Justice Srimathy ordered the Indian Overseas Bank to pay Rs. 42,00,000 in gratuity to the employees. The bank is entitled to recover the balance amount of Rs.1,85,474 from the gratuity deposit of Rs.43,85,474. She directed the Assistant Commissioner of Labour to disburse the fixed amount of gratuity to the workers. The petitions were thus disposed of with no additional costs.

 

 

 Date of Decision: 16th February 2024

 

 

 Indian Overseas Bank vs M/s. Thiruchendur Murugan Spinning Mills & Ors.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[gview file="https://lawyerenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Mad-16-Feb-24-Indian-Overseas-Bank-Civil.pdf"]

 

Latest Legal News