Delay in Test Identification & Absence of Motive Fatal to Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man for Murder Tokre Koli or Dhor Koli – Both Stand on Same Legal Footing: Bombay High Court Slams Scrutiny Committee for Disregarding Pre-Constitutional Records Consent Is No Defence When Victim Is Under 16: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Granting Pre-Arrest Bail in Minor Rape Cases Would Send a Harmful Societal Signal: Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Accused Citing POCSO’s Rigorous Standards Void Marriage No Shield Against Cruelty Charges: Karnataka High Court Affirms Section 498A Applies Even In Deceptive and Void Marital Relationships Consolidation Authorities Cannot Confer Ownership Or Alter Scheme Post Confirmation Without Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Over Void Post-Scheme Orders Daughter’s Right Extinguished When Partition Effected Prior to 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Trial Courts Cannot Direct Filing of Challan After Conviction — Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Directions Against DSP Veer Singh Rule 4 Creates Parity, Not a Parallel Pension Pipeline: Rajasthan High Court Denies Dual Pension to Ex-Chief Justice Serving as SHRC Chairperson Right to Be Heard Must Be Preserved Where Claim Has a Legal Basis: Orissa High Court Upholds Impleadment of Will Beneficiary in Partition Suit Long-Term Ad Hocism Is Exploitation, Not Employment: Orissa High Court Orders Regularization Of Junior Typist After 25 Years Of Service PIL Cannot Be a Tool for Personal Grievances: Supreme Court Upholds Municipal Body’s Power to Revise Property Tax After 16 Years Omission of Accused’s Name by Eyewitness in FIR is a Fatal Lacuna: Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted of Murder Correction In Revenue Map Under Section 30 Isn’t A Tool To Shift Plot Location After 17 Years: Supreme Court Quashes High Court’s Remand Casteist Abuses Must Be In Public View: Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Proceedings Where Alleged Insults Occurred Inside Complainant’s House Resignation Bars Pension, But Not Gratuity: Supreme Court Draws Sharp Line Between Voluntary Retirement and Resignation in DTC Employee Case

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