Bijan Kumar Paul @ Pal vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 6304 Cal

    3                     IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
06.09.2022               CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
  sb
   Ct 550                        APPELLATE SIDE
                                  WPA 8859 of 2022

                                Bijan Kumar Paul @ Pal
                                          Vs.
                            The State of West Bengal & Ors.


                         Mr. Uddipan Banerjee
                                    .... For the petitioner.

                         Ms. Anamika Pandy,
                         Ms. Amrita Pandey,
                         Mr. Ghanshyam Pandey,
                         Ms. Sneha Singh
                                          ... For the respondent no.3.

Affidavit of service filed in Court today is taken on

record.

Despite service, the respondent nos. 1 and 2 are not

represented.

The instant writ application has been filed inter alia

praying for a direction upon the respondent no.2 to hear

out and expeditiously dispose of the proceeding, being

Gratuity Case No.G-62/19/DLC/HOW arising out of the

application for direction dated 4th June, 2019 submitted

by the petitioner with the respondent no.2.

Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate, appearing in

support of the aforesaid application submits that the

petitioner was gainfully employed with the respondent

no.3. He had since been superannuated on 1st January,

2016. Subsequent to his superannuation he had applied

in Form I on 22nd April, 2019 and had claimed an amount

of Rs.2,40,585.57/-. Despite receipt of the aforesaid

application, the respondent no.3 maintained silence and

did not take any steps to make payment of the gratuity

amount to the petitioner. An application in Form N under

the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 was filed with the

Controlling Authority, being the respondent no.2 herein.

Mr. Banerjee further submits that the aforesaid

application is pending adjudication and/or the same has

not been disposed of. He prays for expeditious disposal of

the aforesaid application.

Ms. Pandey, learned advocate appearing for the

respondent no.3 submits that the petitioner at the time of

retirement was not only offered the Provident Fund

accumulations but was also offered the gratuity amount.

The petitioner did not accept the gratuity amount at that

time. She submits that the aforesaid application is

otherwise barred on account of delay and no amount on

account of gratuity is payable to the petitioner. She

further submits that the respondent no.2 is not the

competent authority to adjudicate the claim made by the

petitioner. She says that the respondent no.2 lacks the

territorial jurisdiction to hear out and/or entertain the

aforesaid application, inasmuch as the registered office of

the respondent no.3 is situated at 4, Council House

Street, Kolkata, outside territorial jurisdiction of the

respondent no.2. She claims that the affairs of the

company, is controlled, managed and administered from

the registered office and as such, the respondent no.2 is

not the controlling authority of the area where the

registered office of the respondent no.3 is situated.

In support of the aforesaid, Ms. Pandey relies on an

unreported judgment delivered by this Hon'ble Court in

W.P. No. 9532 (W) of 2010 (Bhanu Prakash vs. Assistant

Labour Commissioner & Ors.).

Mr. Banerjee appearing for the petitioner in reply

submits that a judgment is an authority for what it

decides. The aforesaid judgment has no manner of

application in the facts of the present case. He submits

that in the case referred to by Ms. Pandey, the authorities

had themselves transfer the matter suo motu to

Barrackpore which power is not available with the

respondents. Mr. Banerjee also denies and disputes the

contention raised by Ms. Pandey and submits that the

gratuity was never offered to his client.

I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the

respective parties and considered the materials on record.

I am of the view that the issues raised by Ms. Pandey can

well be decided by the respondent no.2.

In such circumstances, I dispose of the present writ

petition by directing the respondent no.2 to hear out and

dispose of the petitioner's application filed in Form N

dated 4th June, 2019 expeditiously within a period of four

months from date.

The respondent no.2, while deciding the aforesaid

application shall be entitled to take into consideration the

objection raised by the respondent no.3, provided an

appropriate application is filed in that regard by the

respondent no.3 before the authority concerned.

I, however, make it clear that I have not gone into

the merits of the matter either with regard to the merits of

the petitioner's claim or with regard to the objection raised

by the respondent no.3.

Since I have not called for any affidavits,

allegation made in the writ petition are deemed to have

been denied by the respondents.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if

applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of

necessary formalities.

(Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)