Madras High Court
Annis Anandhi vs Kanaga on 23 October, 2008
Author: S.Rajeswaran
Bench: S.Rajeswaran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23.10.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.RAJESWARAN C.R.P.PD.No.2498 of 2007 and W.P.No.35067 of 2007 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 C.R.P.PD.No.2498 of 2007 : 1. Annis Anandhi 2. Shobia (Minor) 3. Master Shana (Minor) 4. Master Sharan (Minor) ... Petitioners Vs Kanaga ... Respondent W.P.No.35067 of 2007 : 1. Annie Anandhi 2. Zareena @ Gladys ... Petitioners Vs The District Manager, Food Corporation of India, 623, Aziz Centre, Thousand lights, Chennai. ... Respondent C.R.P.PD.No.2498 of 2007 : The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, against the Order dated 02.09.2006 passed in C.M.A.No.24 of 2005 by the I Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai confirming the order dated 17.8.2004 passed in I.A.No.14342 of 2003 in O.S.No.4063 of 2003 by the VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. W.P.No.35067 of 2007 : The Writ petition is filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this court to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the respondent herein, to release the terminal benefits of late O.Arundale who is the husband of the petitioners herein and who worked in the respondent Corporation forthwith. For Petitioners in : M/s.S.Chandramouli & both C.R.P. & W.P. R.Sargunaraj For Respondent in C.R.P. : No appearance For Respondent in W.P. : No appearance ***** COMMON ORDER
C.R.P.PD.No.2498 of 2007 :
The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Order dated 02.09.2006 passed in C.M.A.No.24 of 2005 by the I Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai confirming the order dated 17.8.2004 passed in I.A.No.14342 of 2003 in O.S.No.4063 of 2003 by the VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
W.P.No.35067 of 2007 :
The Writ petition is filed praying this court to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the respondent herein, to release the terminal benefits of late O.Arundale who is the husband of the petitioners herein and who worked in the respondent Corporation forthwith.
2. The facts which are necessary for the purpose of disposing of the above two cases are as under:
The parties are referred to as per their ranking in O.S.No.4063 of 2004 filed by one L.Kanaka.
The suit in O.S.No.4063 of 2003 was filed by the plaintiff for directing the defendants 1 to 3 personally, defendants 3 to 8 jointly and severally to pay the plaintiff from the estate of the deceased O.Arundale, a sum of Rs.1,71,900/- with subsequent interest on the principal sum of Rs.1,00,000/- at the rate of 18% per annum.
3. The case of the plaintiff in O.S.No.4063 of 2003 is that, one Thiru O.Arundale was working as Mazdur in Food Corporation of India (FCI), Chennai. He along with defendants 1 to 3 borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff and they jointly executed a Loan Document dated 31.7.1999 to that effect. But, they did not come forward to pay the principal sum with interest. The said O.Arundale retired from his service on 30.04.2002 and subsequently died intestate on 8.12.2002. The defendants 3 to 8 who are the legal heirs are attempting to receive all the retirement benefits of the said O.Arundale from his employer, M/s.Food Corporation of India. The District Manager, Food Corporation of India, is the 9th defendant in the suit. When the plaintiff approached the defendants to recover the above said debt, they promised her to settle the amount from the monetary benefits arising out of the death of O.Arundale lying in the hands of the 9th defendant. But, they are trying to withdraw the entire death benefits clandestinely and hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for the aforesaid relief.
4. Along with the suit, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.14341 of 2003 under order 38 Rule 5 C.P.C. to order conditional attachment before judgment, all the monetary death benefits arising out of the death of O.Arundale, which are lying in the hands of the 9th defendant and I.A.No.14342 of 2003 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. to grant interim injunction restraining the 9th defendant, Food Corporation of India from disbursing the monetary benefits arising out of the death of O.Arundale to the defendants 3 to 8 pending disposal of the suit.
5. An ex-parte order of interim injunction was granted by the trial court in I.A.No.14342 of 2003 and to vacate that order, defendants 1 to 4 filed I.A.No.18278 of 2003. All the three applications were heard together by the trial court and a common order dated 7.8.2004 was passed allowing I.A.No.14342 of 2003 and dismissing I.A.No.14341 of 2003 and I.A.No.18278 of 2003. Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.14342 of 2003, granting temporary injunction restraining the 9th defendant, Food Corporation of India from disbursing the monetary benefits to an extent of Rs.2 lakhs till the disposal of the suit, defendants 5 to 8 filed an appeal in C.M.A.No.24 of 2005. The lower Appellate Court by order dated 2.9.2006, dismissed the appeal and thereby confirmed the order of the trial court granting interim injunction in I.A.No.14342 of 2003. Aggrieved by the order of the lower Appellate Court, defendants 5 to 8 in O.S.No.4063 of 2003 filed the above revision petition under article 227 of the Constitution of India.
6. This court, by order dated 28.08.2007, ordered notice to the respondent and granted interim stay.
7. Thereafter, the 5th defendant in the suit made a representation dated 13.9.2007 to the District Manager, Food Corporation of India, to release the terminal benefits, but, her request was not considered by the Food Corporation of India. Therefore, she along with the third defendant in the suit filed W.P.No.35067 of 2007 for a writ of mandamus directing the District Manager, Food Corporation of India to release the terminal benefits of late O.Arundale who is the husband of both the third defendant and 5th defendant in the suit. The writ petition was admitted by this court on 15.11.2007 and posted the writ petition along with C.R.P.No.2498 of 2007.
8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners and the writ petitioners. Even though notice was served on the respondent in C.R.P.No.2498 of 2007, there was no representation on her behalf. Similarly, even after the receipt of notice in W.P.No.35067 of 2007, none appeared on behalf of Food Corporation of India. I have also gone through the documents and judgment filed in support of his submission.
9. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners/writ petitioners contended that, the trial court as well as the Appellate court committed an illegality in passing an order of interim injunction restraining the Food Corporation of India from releasing the amounts due towards Provident Fund, Leave Salary, Gratuity, etc. of the deceased employee as these are statutory payments and no injunction could be granted against a party from releasing payment under various statutes. He further found fault with the Food Corporation of India for not coming forward to release the terminal benefits after the orders of both the courts were are stayed by this court.
10. In support of his submission, the learned counsel strongly relied on a decision of this court reported in 2004(1) L.W. 125 (1. Sathiyabama, 2. Madhana, 3. Minor Mahalakshmi, 4. Minor Mala, 5. Minor Madhan (Minors are represented by their mother and natural Guardian Sathiyabama-the first petitioner Vs 1. M.Palanisamy, 2.Divsiional Railway Manager (DRM), Southern Railway, Palgot, Kerala State, 3. Senior Divisional Personal Officer, Southern Railway, Palgot, Kerala State, 4. Senior Section Engineer, Railway, West Karur).
11. I have considered the submission of the learned counsel carefully with regard to facts and citations.
12. It is not in dispute that two applications were filed in I.A.No.14341 of 2003 Order 38 Rule 5 C.P.C. and I.A.No.14342 of 2003 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. When both the applications were heard together along with I.A.No.18278 of 2003, the trial court first considered the interim injunction application filed in I.A.No.14341 of 2003. The trial court observed that if the Food Corporation of India is prevented by way of an injunction from disbursing the amounts, the interest of the plaintiff would be safeguarded and on the other hand no prejudice would be caused to the defendants 3 to 8. Therefore, the trial court proceeded to grant the order of temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff. The trial court dismissed I.A.No.14341 of 2003 as the relief was granted in I.A.No.14342 of 2003. When this was taken on appeal, the lower Appellate Court concurred with the findings of the trial court and dismissed the appeal by holding that the trial Judge has analysed the circumstances, the balance of convenience and the prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff.
13. After perusing the order of the trial court as well as the lower Appellate court, I am of the considered view that both of them have committed an illegality in granting an order of interim injunction restraining the Food Corporation of India from releasing the terminal benefits of the deceased employee.
14. The trial court as well as the lower Appellate Court have failed to appreciate the fact that the amounts due to the deceased employee are towards Provident Fund, Leave Salary, Gratuity, etc. Payable under different statutes which are all welfare legislations. Further, the trial court has committed an illegality in coming to the conclusion that no prejudice would be caused to the defendants 3 to 8 when the fact remains that after the death of the bread-winner of the family, the family members would definitely suffer without the regular income and they would be interested in getting the terminal benefits to tide over the immediate crisis. When that amount is blocked, it will certainly cause great prejudice to the legal heirs of the employee. Further, the trial court has also lost sight of the fact that no injunction would be granted against a party from exercising his or her functions as per the statutes or laws governing that field.
15. In 2004(1) L.W.125 (cited supra), this court held that amounts due towards Provident Fund, leave salary, Gratuity, etc. of the deceased employee cannot be attached in the hands of the employer pending suit for recovery of money, filed against his legal representatives, for amounts borrowed by him. The relevant portion of the order reads as under:
"9. It is therefore clear that these amounts which are payable to employees, so that they would not be left resourceless at the time of retirement are exempted for attachment, whether they are payable to the employee or to his legal representatives. The various decisions referred to above also indicate that whether the employee has retired, or has become insolvent or has died the character of these amounts do not change so long as they are in the hands of employer. The immunity from attachment is complete. The object of the provisions are to see that the employee gets these amounts after his retirement or his heirs get them after the employee's 'death' since the scheme is a beneficial one, the authority viz.; the employer is a trustee for those sums and is bound to object to the attachment. The second respondent has rightly maintained its stand against the attachment. There can be no legal justification for classifying or describing such deposits or amounts differently after the employee's death or retirement, so long as they are with the employees, there is protection from attachments. Provident Fund amounts, pension and other compulsory deposit retain their character until they reach the hands of the employee, any other view cannot be taken considering the conditions in which such exemption provisions operate and the class of persons they were intended to benefit. In one of the decisions, even the pay order had been made out but it had not left the hands of the employer, the plea of the person seeking attachment on the ground that, really nothing further was required, was in vain. It still had not reached the employee and as the learned Judge pictursquely put it. " A miss is as good as a mile."
16. Though this judgment was delivered while considering an application filed under Order 38 Rule 5 of C.P.C., the same will certainly hold good for the facts of the present case also. In the present case, two applications have been filed by the plaintiff, one under order 38 Rule 5 C.P.C. and another under order 39 Rule 1 & 2 C.P.C. and the effect of both the prayers in the applications is that the amounts due to the deceased employee should not be released to his legal representatives. In such circumstances, the decision of this court reported in 2004(1) L.W. 125 (cited supra) will certainly apply and if applied, I have no hesitation in allowing the Civil Revision petition by setting aside the orders passed in C.M.A.No.24 of 2005 confirming the order made in I.A.No.14342 of 2003 in O.S.No.4063 of 2003.
17. In the result, the Civil revision petition is allowed. No cost. Consequently, the M.P.No.1 of 2008 filed for stay is also closed.
18. In the light of the orders passed in the above Civil Revision petition, I direct the respondent in W.P.No.35067 of 2007 to release the terminal benefits of the late O.Arundale within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, W.P.No.35067 of 2007 is also allowed. No cost.
23.10.2008 S.RAJESWARAN,J vaan Index: Yes/No Internet:Yes/No vaan To
1. The I Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai
2. The VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
3. The District Manager, Food Corporation of India, 623, Aziz Centre, Thousand lights, Chennai.
C.R.P.(PD.)No.2498 of 2007 and W.P.No.35067 of 2007 and M.P.No.1 of 200724.10.2008