The High Court of Calcutta, while disposing of a petition filed by the petitioner for claiming his gratuity amount post-retirement from his service, held that the petitioner, having worked for more than five years, is entitled to gratuity under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1997
Brief Facts:
The petitioner was appointed on 15th May 1989 and resigned from the services of the respondent with effect from 6th March 1997. The petitioner therefore worked for about eight years. There is no dispute raised from the side of the employer (respondent nos. 9 and 10) that the petitioner did not work between 15th May 1989 and 6th March 1997.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent submitted that the petitioner did not take any steps for the realization of his gratuity amount and after a lapse of about twenty-six years has filed this writ petition. He contended that the writ petition is not maintainable on having been filed on 22nd July 2022, about 22 years from the petitioner’s resignation being accepted as far back as 6th March 1997.
Observations of the court:
The court noted that the statement in the release order amounts to a promise to pay. The petitioner, having worked for more than five years is, therefore entitled to gratuity under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1997.
The court observed that a service-related claim if made at a belated stage is to be refused on the ground of delay. The only exception to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. The Court said that after having promised to release all claims of the petitioner in the release order, the said respondents cannot now contend that the service-related claims of the petitioner are barred by limitation when the employer did not make payment. The promise to pay and its failure amounts to a continuing wrong.
The decision of the Court:
The Calcutta High Court, disposing of the petition application, held that the petitioner is entitled to claim the service-related benefits despite there being a long passage of time in between.
Case Title: Prabir Kumar Ray vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Arindam Mukherjee
Case No.: WPA 16620 of 2022
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Arka Kumar Nag
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Chandi Charan De
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
