Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Kabutri Devi vs M/S Eastern Coalfields Ltd. & Ors on 16 October, 2023
1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
16.10.2023 CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
sb
Ct 550 APPELLATE SIDE
WPA 7234 of 2012
Kabutri Devi
Vs.
M/s Eastern Coalfields Ltd. & Ors.
Mr. S. S. Arefin
... For the petitioner
Mr. Manik Das
... For the respondent nos. 1 to 6.
1. Pursuant to the order dated 6th October, 2023, a
report in the form of an affidavit has been filed on behalf
of the respondent no.1. Let the same be taken on record.
2. Mr. Das, learned advocate representing the
respondent no.1, by drawing attention of this Court to a
letter dated 25th August, 2016 submits that by cover of
such letter, the respondent no.1 had deposited a sum of
Rs.1,27,995/- with the Controlling Authority towards the
gratuity payable in respect of Ramdeo Shaw of Khottadih
Colliery. Mr. Das, however, could not demonstrate before
this Court whether any attempt was made by the
respondent no.1 to offer the aforesaid gratuity to Ramdeo
Shaw immediately after the order of termination.
3. Independent of the above on the basis of the
disclosure made by the respondent no.1, in the aforesaid
affidavit, admittedly a sum of Rs.40,000/- is payable on
account of the life cover scheme.
4. Mr. Arefin, learned advocate representing the
petitioner by drawing attention of this Court to the
judgment and order dated 29th October, 2011 submits
that since, Ramdeb Shaw who is also known as Ramdeo
Shaw had been missing since 18th December, 2003, a
competent civil Court in T.S. No. 17 of 2011 has at the
instance of the petitioner and other legal heirs of Ramdeo
Shaw declared that the said Ramdeb Shaw, being the
husband of the petitioner and the father of the plaintiff
nos. 2 to 6 in the said suit, to be dead in the eye of law.
By referring to a communication dated 13th March, 2012
he submits, that the petitioner had subsequently applied
to the agent of the colliery for disbursal of monetary
benefits in her favour, enclosing therewith the aforesaid
decree.
5. Heard the learned advocates for the respective
parties. Since, the petitioner is armed with the decree
passed by the competent civil Court, I am of the view that
the respondent no.1 should, at this stage, disburse the
admitted amount of gratuity payable to Ramdeb Shaw @
Ramdeo Shaw unto and in favour of the petitioner and
other legal heirs on/or before the returnable date, subject
to verification of their identity by the respondent no.1.
6. The aforesaid payment shall be made without
prejudice to the rights and contention of the respondent
no.1 as regards the deposit of the said amount with the
Controlling Authority. In addition to the aforesaid
amount, the respondent no.1 shall also make payment of
Rs.40,000/- towards life cover scheme in favour of the
legal heirs Ramdeo Shaw.
7. At this stage, Mr. Das, learned advocate
representing the respondent no.1 seeks leave to withdraw
the amount deposited by the respondent no.1 with the
Controlling Authority. I am of the view, that no such leave
is necessary since, the gratuity is being disbursed directly
by the respondent no.1 in favour of the legal heirs of
Ramdeo Shaw since, declared as deceased. It shall,
however, be open to the respondent no.1 to made
appropriate application seeking refund of the deposit from
the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity
Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), if so
advised.
8. The petitioner and other legal heirs of Ramdeo Shaw
shall also accept the aforesaid amount without prejudice
to their rights and contentions as regards their
entitlement to seek determination of the differential
amount of gratuity.
9. In the event, the petitioner or the other legal heirs
claim any differential amount, it shall be open to the
petitioner and the other legal heirs to make appropriate
application before the Controlling Authority under the
provisions of the said Act.
10. List this matter under the heading, "To Be
Mentioned" two weeks after the puja vacation.
(Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)
