C. Mesiadhas vs The Special Officer, Manakkavilai Primary Agricultural Cooperative Bank Ltd.

K. Chandru, J.—The Petitioner, who was an ex-Cashier of the Respondent, Primary Agricultural Cooperative Bank, filed the present Writ petition challenging the order passed by the Respondent, Special Officer dated 31.01.2008.

By the impugned notice, the Petitioner was informed that the provident fund amount with the interestthe Payment of Gratuity Act will accrued therein standing to the credit of the Petitioner was Rs. 11,78,171.35 and the amount received by the Bank towards gratuity was Rs. 1,17,763/- and the E.P.F. amount which is recovered towards deduction was Rs. 15,500/-. Therefore, after adjusting the gratuity pay, the Petitioner is bound to pay a sum of Rs. 10,09,908.35. The Petitioner contended that such a deduction of the entire gratuity amount was illegal and the Petitioner is fully protected by Sections 13 and 14 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

First of all, the Writ petition is not maintainable in the light of the Larger Bench judgment of this Court reported in K. Marappan Vs. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies and The Special Officer, Vattur Co-operative Agricultural Bank, . The reliance placed upon Sections 13 and 14 of the Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 60(g) of the CPC is clearly not violated.

The Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act which is a state enactment and received the assent of the President on 15.07.1983. Therefore, by virtue of Article 254(2) any Central law on the field cannot have a overriding effect over the State enactment. Section 48(2) of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act specifically provides that in case of loss to the Society or any amount due to the Society, the gratuity amount can be adjusted and if there are claim from more than one society for the said amount, the same can be shared by the different society.

Therefore, the Petitioner''s contention that Section 14 of the Payment of Gratuity Act will override cannot be accepted. In the light of the above, the contentions raised by the Petitioner are misconceived and contrary to law. Hence, the Writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed.