Mere Allegations of Harassment Do Not Constitute Abetment of Suicide: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail to Wife in Matrimonial Suicide Case 'Convenience Of Wife Not A Thumb Rule, But Custody Of Minor Child Is A Weighing Aspect': Punjab & Haryana HC Transfers Divorce Case To Rohtak MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Cooperative Society Is A “Veritable Party” To Arbitration Clause In Flat Agreements, Temple Trust Entitled To Arbitrate As Non-Signatory: Bombay High Court State Government Cannot Review Its Own Revisional Orders Under Section 41(3): Allahabad High Court Affirms Legal Bar on Successive Reviews When Several Issues Arise, Courts Must Answer Each With Reasons: Supreme Court Automatic Retention Trumps Lessee Tag: Calcutta High Court Declares Saregama India ‘Raiyat’, Directs Reconsideration of Land Conversion Application Recovery of Valid Ticket Raises Presumption of Bona Fide Travel – Burden Shifts to Railways: Delhi High Court Restores Railway Accident Claim Failure to Frame Issue on Limitation Vitiates Award of Compensation Under Telegraph Act: Gauhati High Court Sets Aside Order, Remands Matter Compassionate Appointment Is Not a Heritable Right: Gujarat High Court Rejects 9-Year Delayed Claim, Orders Re-Issuance of ₹4 Lakh Compensation Court Cannot Rewrite Contracts to Suit Contractor’s Convenience: Kerala High Court Upholds Termination of Road Work Under Risk and Cost Clause Post-Bail Conduct Is Irrelevant in Appeal Against Grant of Bail: Supreme Court Clarifies Crucial Distinction Between Appeal and Cancellation Granting Anticipatory Bail to a Long-Absconding Accused Makes a Mockery of the Judicial Process: Supreme Court Cracks Down on Pre-Arrest Bail in Murder Case Recognition as an Intangible Asset Does Not Confer Ownership: Supreme Court Draws a Sharp Line Between Accounting Entries and Property Rights IBC Cannot Be the Guiding Principle for Restructuring the Ownership and Control of Spectrum: Supreme Court Reasserts Public Trust Over Natural Resources Courts Cannot Convict First and Search for Law Later: Supreme Court Faults Prosecution for Ignoring Statutory Foundation in Cement Case When the Law Itself Stood Withdrawn, How Could Its Violation Survive?: Supreme Court Quashes 1994 Cement Conviction Under E.C. Act Ten Years Means Ten Years – Not a Day Less: Supreme Court Refuses to Dilute Statutory Experience Requirement for SET Exemption SET in Malayalam Cannot Qualify You to Teach Economics: Supreme Court Upholds Subject-Specific Eligibility for HSST Appointments Outsourcing Cannot Become A Tool To Defeat Regularization: Supreme Court On Perennial Nature Of Government Work Once Similarly Placed Workers Were Regularized, Denial to Others Is Discrimination: Supreme Court Directs Regularization of Income Tax Daily-Wage Workers Right To Form Association Is Protected — But Not A Right To Run It Free From Regulation: Supreme Court Recalibrates Article 19 In Sports Governance S. Nithya Cannot Be Transplanted Into Cricket: Supreme Court Shields District Cricket Bodies From Judicially Imposed Structural Overhaul Will | Propounder Must Dispel Every Suspicious Circumstance — Failure Is Fatal: : Punjab & Haryana High Court Electronic Evidence Authenticity Jeopardized by Unexplained Delay and Procedural Omissions: MP High Court Rejects Belated 65B Application Not Answering to the Questions of the IO Would Not Ipso Facto Mean There Is Non-Cooperation: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail Undertaking to Satisfy Award Is Not Waiver of Appeal: Supreme Court Restores Insurer’s Statutory Right

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