Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Jigira Sk vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 1 July, 2022
Item No.2 & 3.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
HEARD ON: 01.07.2022
DELIVERED ON:01.07.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA
M.A.T. No.1134 of 2021
With
I.A. No.CAN 1 of 2021
Jigira Sk.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
C.O. No.743 of 2021
M/s. Delta Limited
Vs.
Jigira Sk. & anr.
Appearance:-
Mr. Rananeesh Guha Thakurta,
Ms. Sejuti Sengupta ..... for the appellant.
Mr. Susovan Sengupta,
Mr. Bipin Ghosh ... for the respondents/State.
Mr. Soumya Majumdar,
2
Ms. Amrita Pandey,
Ms. Anamika Pandey ... for the respondent no.5
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.)
1. Since the matters are inter-connected, both the appeal as
well as civil revisional application are taken up together for
disposal. MAT 1134 of 2021 has been filed by the workman
challenging an order passed in W.P.A. No.12069 of 2021 dated 27 th
September, 2021. By the said writ petition, the appellant /
workman sought to give effect to the order passed by the
Certificate Officer, Howrah dated 3rd March, 2021 determining the
compound interest payable to the appellant workman under the
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 to Rs.1,13,227/-. Soon after the
writ petition was filed and notice was served on the appellant /
workman, the management had served copies of the civil revision
petition filed by them challenging the order of the Certificate
Officer dated 3rd March, 2021. The learned Single Bench while
hearing the writ petition opined that since the order of the
Certificate Officer has been challenged independently in C.O.
No.743 of 2021, it would not be appropriate to issue any writ of
mandamus to implement the said order. Accordingly, the relief
sought for in the writ petition was declined. Aggrieved by the
same, the workman is on appeal before us.
2. The management had filed the civil revision petition by
contending that the workman had consciously entered into a
Memorandum of Settlement with the management and accepted a sum
of Rs.3,51,090/- as full and final settlement towards all claims
under the Payment of Gratuity Act and that application for grant
of compound interest was not maintainable and the Controlling
Authority herein computed and directed payment of compound
interest. It is contended that the management placed reliance
on a decision of the High Court of Madras in M/s. Andhra Laundry
Vs. Presiding Officer reported at 1976 SCC OnLine Mad 286 for
the proposition that once a workman signs a receipt in full and
final settlement, he waives his right to claim any of the
benefits under the statute.
3. Further, for proposition that the workman cannot approbate
and reprobate, reliance was placed on the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra Sankla &
Ors. Vs. Vikram Cement & Ors. reported at (2008) 1 SCC 58.
Furthermore, it is submitted that the workman cannot resile from
the terms of settlement, which was a compromise settlement and
to support such contention, reliance has been placed on the
decision of the High Court of Madras in the case of M. Devadasan
Vs. The Management, M/s. Southern Roadways Ltd. reported at 1964
SCR (4) 680. Further, it is contended that the terms of
settlement is valid and it cannot be held to be hit by Section
14 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and for such
proposition, reliance has been placed on the decision in the
case of V. Vaithyanathan & Ors. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Labour, Thiruchirapally & Anr. reported at 2002 (3) LLN 539.
4. The learned Advocate appearing for the workman contended
that the civil revision petition itself is not maintainable and
if revision petition is entertained, it will frustrate the very
recovery process by creating multiple tiers of interference,
which is against the interest of the workman and not provided
for under the law.
5. Further, it is submitted that there can be no estoppel
agaisnt the workman from claiming a statutory interest and
therefore, the authority was justified in computing the compound
interest payable to the workman.
6. After we have elaborately heard the learned counsels on
either side, we are of the view that it may not be necessary to
decide on the issue regarding the maintainability of the civil
revision petition, which is being very hotly contested by the
learned Advocate appearing for the workman. We say so for the
reason that in the earlier round of litigation, the Hon'ble
Division Bench by judgment and order dated 21st January, 2021 in
MAT 95 of 2021 had issued a specific direction to the
Certificate Officer. We quote such direction for better
appreciation:-
"We are of the opinion that these questions
regarding payment, settlement of gratuity dues
under the terms of settlement, claim for
compound interest etc. should be decided by the
certificate officer and not by this Court."
7. In terms of the above direction, the Certificate Officer
was required to decide as to the effect of the settlement
entered into between the management and the workman on the claim
for compound interest. On going through the order passed by the
Certificate Officer, we find that such issue has not at all been
dealt with. Though the Certificate Officer states that he
passes a reasoned order, we find that there are no reasons
forthcoming. Thus, the order passed by the Certificate Officer
impugned in the civil revision petition being in violation of
the judgment and order of the Hon'ble Division Bench, it would
suffice for us to interfere with the said order. We make it
clear that we are not expressing any opinion with regard to the
maintainability of the civil revision petition against the said
order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
8. In the light of the above, no separate order is required
to be passed in MAT 1134 of 2021.
9. Since the Certificate Officer has committed a gross error
in not complying with the specific direction issued by the
Hon'ble Division Bench, we deem it appropriate to remand the
matter to the Certificate Officer, Howrah for a fresh decision
in the matter. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is
allowed for reasons set out above and the order passed by the
Certificate Officer is set aside and the matter is remanded to
the Certificate Officer to take a fresh decision in the matter
within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the
server copy of this judgment and order.
10. The Certificate Officer shall note that he shall decide the
issue raised before him in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Division Bench as pointed out by us above.
11. The learned counsel appearing for the workman submitted
that Section 14 of the Payment of Gratuity Act is very crucial
as it overrides any order or settlement and in support of such
contention, reliance has been placed on various decisions. We
give liberty to the workman to raise such contention before the
Certificate Officer.
12. The management as well as the workman shall be entitled to
an opportunity of personal hearing and both parties shall not
seek any adjournment on the date fixed by the Certificate
Officer.
13. Accordingly, C.O. 743 of 2021 is allowed and MAT 1134 of
2021 and the connected application are disposed of as no further
orders are required in the matter.
14. It is made clear that all contentions available on facts
and in law are kept open to be canvassed by the workman as well
as by the management before the Certificate Officer.
15. No costs.
16. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied
for, be furnished to the parties expeditiously upon compliance
of all legal formalities.
(T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J)
I agree,
(HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)
NAREN/PALLAB(AR.C)
