Raj Kumar Gupta vs The State Of Bihar And Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 4818 Patna

Patna High Court

Raj Kumar Gupta vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 19 December, 2025

Author: Anil Kumar Sinha

Bench: Anil Kumar Sinha

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                   Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19452 of 2018
     ======================================================
     Raj Kumar Gupta S/o Late Prabhu Kumar Gupta, R/o Maripur Power house
     Chowk, P.S.- Kazimohammadpur, Distt- Muzaffarpur.
                                                              ... ... Petitioner/s
                                       Versus
1.    The State Of Bihar
2.   The Labour Commissioner cum Appellate Authority, M.W. Act, 1948, Bihar,
     Patna.
3.   The Deputy Labour Commissioner cum Controlling Authority under
     Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Muzaffarpur, Pin Code No. 84002
4.   The District Certificate Officer, Near Registry Office, Court Compound,
     Muzaffarpur, Pin Code No. 842001
5.    Sri Akhilesh Mandal, S/o Late Jarmany Mandal, R/o Village- Baritha, P.O.-
      Katra, Distt- Muzaffarpur.
                                                            ... ... Respondent/s
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner/s   :        Mr.Krishna Kant Singh
     For the Respondent/s   :        Mr.Ajay Kr.Rastogi -AAG10
                            :        Mr. Parijat Saurav, AC to AAG10
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA

     JUDGMENT AND ORDER
     C.A.V.
      Date : 19-12-2025

              1. The petitioner has filed the present writ application for

      quashing the order, dated 17.01.2015, passed by the Deputy

      Labour       Commissioner            -cum-     Controlling       Authority,

      Muzaffarpur, in Case No. G.A. 06/2008, whereby the petitioner

      has been directed to deposit the gratuity amount of Rs. 41,538/-

      along with interest within thirty days. It is further prayer of the

      petitioner      for       quashing    the    appellate      order,   dated

      23.01.2018/05

.02.2018, passed in Appeal No. 03 of 2017 by the

Labour Commissioner -cum- Appellate Authority. It is further

prayed for quashing of the entire certificate proceeding initiated Patna High Court CWJC No.19452 of 2018 dt.19-12-2025

vide Certificate Case No. 211/2015-16, including the Distress

Warrant, dated 13.06.2018/17.07.2018, issued against the

petitioner.

2. The brief facts, as per the case of the petitioner, is that

the petitioner was running a hotel business under the name of

"Purana Bhagirath Hotel", located at Court Compound,

Muzaffarpur, on Stall No. 3. The said hotel, due to operational

losses and financial instability, was closed on 26.07.2008. After

closure of the hotel, respondent no. 5, Shri Akhilesh Mandal,

claiming to be an employee, filed an application on 06.09.2008

under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, (hereinafter referred to

as the 'Gratuity Act') before the Controlling Authority,

Muzaffarpur, seeking relief for determining the amount of

gratuity and payment of the same to him. The petitioner

appeared and filed a detailed show-cause on 12.11.2008,

asserting that respondent no. 5 was never a continuous

employee and had not rendered five years of uninterrupted

service as required under Section 4 of the Gratuity Act to

qualify for gratuity.

3. The Deputy Labour Commissioner -cum- Controlling

Authority passed an order on 17.01.2015 directing the petitioner

to deposit Rs.41,538/- along with interest towards gratuity, Patna High Court CWJC No.19452 of 2018 dt.19-12-2025

failing which recovery through certificate proceeding was

directed.

4. Thereafter, Certificate Case No. 211 of 2015-16 was

initiated for recovery of Rs.85,153/-, being double the amount

along with interest and thereafter, Distress Warrant (D/W) was

issued against the petitioner without serving mandatory notice

under Section 7 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands

Recovery Act, 1914, depriving the petitioner of an opportunity

to file objection.

5. Aggrieved by the initiation of certificate case and

issuance of distress warrant, the petitioner filed C.W.J.C. No.

8449 of 2017, wherein this Court, on 26.07.2017, while

disposing the writ petition, granted interim protection directing

that if the petitioner deposits 50% of the total amount in the

office of the Controlling Officer and files appeal against the

order passed by Deputy Labour Commissioner -cum-

Controlling Authority, no coercive action would be taken till

disposal of appeal. In compliance, the petitioner deposited the

said amount through a bank draft, dated 10.08.2017, and

intimated the authorities as well as the police.

6. The petitioner, subsequently, preferred Appeal No. 03

of 2017 before the Labour Commissioner i.e., Appellate Patna High Court CWJC No.19452 of 2018 dt.19-12-2025

Authority. However, vide order, dated 23.01.2018/05.02.2018,

the appeal was dismissed and the impugned order, dated

17.01.2015, was affirmed.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

impugned order is non-speaking, cryptic and passed without

considering material documents such as service record, inquiry

report and closure status of the hotel.

8. Learned counsel further submits that the provisions

contained in the Gratuity Act, particularly Section 1(3)(b), have

no application to the establishment of the petitioner as the hotel

of the petitioner was a small unit, employing less than ten

employees and the same stood permanently closed on

26.07.2008. Therefore, the pre-requisite condition for coverage

under the Gratuity Act is absent and the Controlling Authority

lacked jurisdiction to entertain the claim of gratuity.

Accordingly, his submission is that all proceedings initiated

under the Gratuity Act against the petitioner are without

jurisdiction and illegal.

9. It has further been submitted that respondent no. 5 has

never worked continuously in the establishment and the

conclusion arrived at by the Controlling Authority that the

respondent no. 5 had rendered 20 years of continuous service is Patna High Court CWJC No.19452 of 2018 dt.19-12-2025

wholly incorrect, perverse and contrary to record. The inquiry

report, dated 19.12.1999, prepared by the Labour

Superintendent -cum- Inspector, which has been annexed as

Annexure-1 to the present writ petition does not contain the

name of respondent no. 5 as an employee of the establishment.

The service card of respondent no. 5 also does not demonstrate

continuous service, rather, shows that after initial appointment,

he remained absent and never completed even five years of

uninterrupted service, which is a statutory requirement under

Section 4 of the Gratuity Act.

10. The onus lies on the employee to establish continuous

service of five years and respondent no. 5 has failed to produce

a single document to demonstrate continuity of service. A mere

assertion or mention of joining the establishment in the year

1988 does not, in any manner, prove completion of five years

continuous service. Thus, the very foundation of the claim is

doubtful.

11. The appellate authority relied upon the order, dated

03.02.2011, passed in ATA No.14(3)/2009 of the EPF Appellate

Tribunal, New Delhi, wherein it was mentioned that 24

employees were working in the establishment. However, the

said order was challenged by the petitioner and was Patna High Court CWJC No.19452 of 2018 dt.19-12-2025

subsequently set aside by this Hon'ble Court vide judgment,

dated 14.08.2018, making such reliance wholly untenable.

12. Assailing the initiation of certificate proceedings,

learned counsel submits that the petitioner was never granted an

opportunity to file objection under Section 7 of the Bihar and

Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914, and no notice

under Section 7 was ever served upon the petitioner before

issuance of the Distress Warrant. Without deciding the

objections and without providing reasonable opportunity of

hearing, the Certificate Officer could not have issued distress

warrant and, therefore, any coercive step taken pursuant thereto

is illegal and liable to be set aside.

13. The Appellate Authority passed a cryptic and non-

speaking order, based only on conjectures and surmises, without

appreciation of documentary evidence and without assigning

any reason. It has been wrongly assumed that respondent no. 5

worked till the date of closure of the hotel, although no

document exists on record to establish such fact.

14. It is further submitted that the hotel was sealed by the

Government much prior to the date of claim, which is clearly

evident from Letter No. 293, dated 05.02.2014, issued by the

Land Reforms Deputy Collector (DCLR), East Muzaffarpur, Patna High Court CWJC No.19452 of 2018 dt.19-12-2025

and further the father of the petitioner, who was the original

proprietor, died on 12.04.2006, thereby resulting in closure of

business operations due to financial and personal hardship. The

claim for gratuity was filed on 06.09.2008, i.e., at the time when

the establishment had already ceased to exist, and therefore, the

attendance register or payment register was no longer available,

which fact has not been considered by the respondents.

15. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent

argued that respondent no. 5 duly filed gratuity claim before the

Deputy Labour Commissioner -cum- Controlling Authority,

Muzaffarpur, under the Gratuity Act stating therein that he was

working as a cook in the hotel of the petitioner at the monthly

salary of Rs. 3,600/-, and he had worked continuously from

02.04.1988 till 27.07.2008, i.e., for more than 20 years, but no

gratuity amount was paid to him. Accordingly, Gratuity Case

No. 06 of 2008, later registered as GA Case No. 01/2016, was

instituted.

16. It is submitted that upon issuance of notice, both the

parties appeared before the Controlling Authority and were

afforded full opportunity to place their respective cases. The

petitioner admitted that respondent no. 5 was employed in his

hotel in the year 1988. However, the petitioner failed to produce Patna High Court CWJC No.19452 of 2018 dt.19-12-2025

any attendance register, payment register or any such register of

the establishment which could controvert the claim of

continuous service made by the workman. The Controlling

Authority rightly drew an adverse inference against the

petitioner and came to the conclusion that the relationship of

employer and employee stood established and the workman had

worked continuously till the date of closure of the hotel.

Accordingly, the Deputy Labour Commissioner -cum-

Controlling Authority passed a reasoned order, dated

17.01.2015, allowing the gratuity claim of respondent no. 5 and

directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 41,538/- along with

interest to him within a period of thirty days.

17. He further submits that the Appellate Authority, after

hearing both the parties and upon due consideration of the

documents on record, found that the workman had worked

continuously till the date of closure of the hotel and the

employer had failed to produce any documentary evidence to

disprove such claim. The Appellate Authority, therefore, found

no substance in the appeal and disposed the same by order,

dated 05.02.2018, affirming the order of the Controlling

Authority.

18. He lastly submits that the contention of the petitioner Patna High Court CWJC No.19452 of 2018 dt.19-12-2025

that he does not want to pay the lawful gratuity amount is

wholly untenable. The petitioner has deliberately withheld

payment for a long period without any valid reason and has

approached this Hon'ble Court only to delay and frustrate the

legitimate claim of the workman. The respondent no. 5, i.e., the

workman, could not appear despite notice.

19. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have

gone through the materials on record, including the impugned

orders.

20. From perusal of the impugned order passed by the

Deputy Labour Commissioner, it is evident that several dates

were fixed for hearing, during which the petitioner-employer

remained absent and repeatedly sought adjournments. The

Controlling Authority, thereafter, proceeded to record the

statement of respondent no. 5, who categorically stated that he

had been working as a cook in the hotel of the petitioner since

1988, and about 21 workers were working in the establishment.

21. It is further evident from the record that respondent

no. 5 produced a service card issued by the Labour

Superintendent, which clearly reflected that he was working in

the establishment since 1988. In addition thereto, the

Controlling Authority took note of Letter No. 2865 dated Patna High Court CWJC No.19452 of 2018 dt.19-12-2025

06.12.1999, filed by the claimant, which disclosed that 24

employees were working in the establishment, thereby, bringing

the hotel of the petitioner within the ambit of the Gratuity Act.

22. The principal contention raised by the petitioner

before this Court is that respondent no. 5 did not render

continuous service of five years and, therefore, was not entitled

to gratuity under the Gratuity Act. This Court finds no merit in

the said submission.

23. It is evident from the record that the petitioner himself

admitted before the Deputy Labour Commissioner that

respondent no. 5 was employed in his establishment from

02.04.1988, and further admitted his engagement during

different periods including 1995 and 2004. Despite such

admission, the petitioner failed to produce any attendance

register, payment register, or any such register of the

establishment to substantiate the plea that the employee had

worked for less than five years. The burden to maintain and

produce statutory employment records lies squarely upon the

employer. In absence of such records, the Controlling Authority

was justified in drawing an adverse inference against the

petitioner.

24. The petitioner has placed reliance on an Inquiry Patna High Court CWJC No.19452 of 2018 dt.19-12-2025

Report, dated 19.12.1999 issued by the Labour Superintendent

-cum- Inspector to contend that the name of respondent no. 5

did not appear in the list of employees working in the

establishment. However, on careful examination, it is evident

that the said inquiry report only contains a list of employees

who were being paid wages below the prescribed minimum

wages under Section 12(1) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.

The said report does not purport to be a complete list of all

employees working in the establishment. Hence, the reliance

placed upon the said inquiry report by the petitioner is

misconceived.

25. The Appellate Authority has duly considered all these

aspects and upon appreciation of the evidence on record, has

upheld the order of the Deputy Labour Commissioner. Both the

authorities have concurrently recorded findings of fact that

respondent no. 5 had rendered continuous service exceeding

five years and the petitioner's establishment was covered under

the Gratuity Act.

26. This Court finds that concurrent findings so recorded

are pure findings of fact, based on appreciation of evidence, and

no perversity, arbitrariness, or jurisdictional error has been

demonstrated so as to warrant interference under Article 226 of Patna High Court CWJC No.19452 of 2018 dt.19-12-2025

the Constitution of India.

27. It is also relevant to note that the Gratuity Act is a

beneficial legislation, enacted to protect the interest of

employees, who form the weaker section in industrial

adjudication.

28. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.C.

Chamaraju v. Hind Nippon Rural Industrial (P) Ltd.,

reported in (2007) 8 SCC 501, has held that while interpreting

provisions of such welfare legislation, a liberal and purposive

interpretation must be adopted so as to advance the object of the

Act.

29. In the present case, the petitioner is seeking to re-

agitate factual issues already decided by two statutory

authorities after due consideration of documentary as well as

oral evidences. This Court, in exercising jurisdiction under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot act like a Super

Appellate Authority and such exercise is impermissible in writ

jurisdiction.

30. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds

no infirmity in the order passed by the Deputy Labour

Commissioner -cum- Controlling Authority or in the appellate

order passed by the Labour Commissioner -cum- Appellate Patna High Court CWJC No.19452 of 2018 dt.19-12-2025

Authority.

31. Further, this Court finds that once the order passed by

the Deputy Labour Commissioner -cum- Controlling Authority,

as affirmed by the Labour Commissioner -cum- Appellate

Authority, is not being interfered with, the consequential

certificate proceedings initiated for recovery of the gratuity

amount cannot be faulted. The certificate proceedings are

merely in the nature of execution of order passed under the

Gratuity Act. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to file

objection if the same has not already been filed before the

Certificate Officer who shall decide the objection under Section

9 filed by the petitioner within a period of one month from the

date of order.

32. The writ petition, being devoid of merit, is

accordingly, dismissed.

33. There shall be no order as to costs.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J) HarshPandey/-

AFR/NAFR                    AFR
CAV DATE                 18.11.2025
Uploading Date           19.12.2025
Transmission Date           N/A