1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 13.10.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.(MD)No.4434 of 2011 S.Rosaline ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai. 2.The Thasildar, Madurai South Taluk, Madurai Collectorate, Madurai 625 020. 3.A.R.A.S. & P.V.P.V,& Company Ltd., through its Managing Director, P.V.Parthasarathy 58-A, TPK Road, Madurai 625 004. 4.P.Vasu ... Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to proceed against the 3rd and 4th respondents to recover the gratuity amount of Rs.46,731/- with the interest of 15% from 11.08.2002 with cost as per Recovery Certificate dated 7.11.2005. For Petitioner : Mr.A.John Vincent For Respondents : Mr.M.Govindan, Spl.G.P. for R1 and R2 Mr.G.Arunachalam for R4 O R D E R It is the case of the petitioner that she has secured an exparty order from the controlling authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, claiming gratuity payable to her husband late Sylvester Paul Chandra, who was employed in the 3rd respondent company. 2.The authority by an order dated 07.06.2005 computing a sum of Rs.46,731/- together with interest at the rate of 10% with effect from 11.08.2002 ordered payment of gratuity together with the cost of Rs.1000/-. Since the said amount was not paid, she approached the Assistant Commissioner of Labour for recovering the said amount. Accordingly, the Revenue Recovery certificate was issued on 07.11.2005 directing the District Collector, Madurai to recover the amount. When the amount was not recovered, she approached this Court for giving a direction to the respondent to proceed against the 3rd and 4th respondents for recovering the amount. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3.When the matter came up on 18.04.2011, this Court directed the petitioner to issue notice for admission and private notice was also permitted. Accordingly, for the 4th respondent, a counsel appears. 4.Today when the matter came up, it was brought to the notice of this Court that the Assistant Commissioner of Labour / controlling authority on the payment of gratuity, had sent a communication to the petitioner dated 12.09.2011 stating that the management has already deposited a sum of Rs.1,10,818/- and she was asked to submit the legal aid certificate for the purpose of making payment. The learned counsel for the respondent / management also stated that they have filed an application for setting aside the exparty order. 5.In any event, in the light of the subsequent development and the money will lie in the deposit with the controlling authority, the question of directing the District Collector or his subordinate to recover the amount does not arise. 6.Hence, the Writ petition stands dismissed as infructuous. It is for the petitioner to approach the controlling authority by filing appropriate application with sufficient proof of her entitlement to withdraw the amount. 7.With these observation, the Writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (A.S) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar (C.S) To 1.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai. 2.The Thasildar, Madurai South Taluk, Madurai Collectorate, Madurai 625 020. + 1 cc to The Special Government Pleader, SR No.35735 W.P.(MD)No.4434 of 2011 13.10.2011 nbj RJ/3.11.11 2p/4c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/