Calcutta High Court
Bridge And Roof Company India Limited vs Palas Mandal And Ors on 5 September, 2024
Author: Rajasekhar Mantha
Bench: Rajasekhar Mantha
OD-2
ORDER SHEET
APOT/339/2023
IA NO:GA/1/2023, GA/2/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
BRIDGE AND ROOF COMPANY INDIA LIMITED
Versus
PALAS MANDAL AND ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE RAJASEKHAR MANTHA
AND
The Hon'ble JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR GUPTA
Date : 5th September, 2024.
Appearance:
Mr. S. Banerjee, Adv.; Mr. S. Dey Paul, Adv., appear.
Mr. A. Pandey, Adv.; Mr. M.Z. Rauf, Adv., appear.
1. The Court: Sufficient grounds are available in the application for
condonation of delay in filing the instant appeal.
2. However, the learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes
the prayer for condonation.
3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature
of the order appealed from, this Court is of the view that the delay may
be condoned upon payment of costs assessed at Rs.3500/-, to be
payable by the appellant to the respondent within a period of three days
from date.
4. The application for condonation of delay accordingly stands allowed.
5. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated
June 26, 2023, passed by a Single Judge in WPO/603/2023 (Palas
Mandal -vs- Bridge and Roof Company (India) Ltd. & Ors.)
6. The writ petition was filed by the respondent seeking gratuity from the
appellant. The appellant contended that the writ petitioner was not in
continuous service. He was appointed on contract from time to time.
The same, according to the appellant, involves retrenchment and,
therefore, there was no continuous service rendered by the writ
petitioner.
7. The writ petitioner, on the contrary, contended that his service was
continuous for a period of 12 years, comprising of 240 days of each
completed year.
8. There are some disputed questions of fact that arise as to whether the
writ petitioner was in continuous service. This is a matter that may
require trial on evidence. The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is a
complete code which prescribes appropriate proceedings including trial
on evidence.
9. In view of the effective efficacious and alternative remedy available before
the authorities under the Payment of Gratuity Act, namely the
controlling authority and the appellate authorities, this Court is of the
unequivocal view that the writ petition could not have been entertained.
10. If the writ petitioner had in fact rendered continuous service, he
would have been entitled to Rs.1,53,750/- as gratuity for services
rendered.
11. This court therefore directs that the appellant shall deposit a sum
of Rs.1 lakh with the controlling authority within a period of two weeks
from date.
12. The writ petitioner shall file an application under the relevant
section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act before the controlling authority
within a period of seven days from date.
13. Upon receipt of the application, the controlling authority shall,
with due notice to the appellant, decide the issue of entitlement of
gratuity of the writ petitioner in accordance with the statute and the
prescribed rules therefor, preferably within a period of three months of
filing of the application.
14. Upon receipt of the aforesaid sum of money, the same shall be
deposited in an interest bearing fixed account with a nationalized bank
which shall abide by the proceedings under the Act of 1972 as indicated
above.
15. It is, however, made clear that in default of any application being
made within a period of seven days from date, the appellant shall not be
obliged to make the deposit.
16. It is also ordered that if the writ petitioner makes such an
application as indicated above and there is default on the part of the
appellant in making deposit as indicated above, the order of the Single
Bench shall automatically stand revived and the writ petitioner shall be
entitled to the full sum of gratuity together with interest at the rate of 8
per cent per annum from the date of its accrual till the date of actual
payment.
17. With the aforesaid observations the impugned judgment and order
dated June 26, 2023 stands set aside and APOT/339/2023, along with
the connected applications, accordingly stands disposed of.
18. Consequently, CC/110/2023 shall not be proceeded with by the
writ petitioner. The rule issued by the Single Bench shall be kept in
abeyance.
(RAJASEKHAR MANTHA, J.)
(AJAY KUMAR GUPTA, J.)
tk
