Tripura High Court
Ms. R. Purakayastha vs Mr. Kohinoor N Bhattacharjee on 1 February, 2022
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
Review Pet.No.06 of 2021
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. R. Purakayastha, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kohinoor N Bhattacharjee, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
Order
01/02/2022
Heard Ms. R. Purakayastha, learned counsel appearing for the
review petitioner as well as Mr. Kohinoor N Bhattacharjee, learned counsel
appearing for the respondents.
2. For review of the judgment and order dated 25.06.2018, delivered
in WP(C)No.659 of 2016, the petitioner has approached this Court. According
to the petitioner, the submission that was made by the counsel for the
respondent No.4 in the course of the final hearing that the Fish Farmers'
Development Agencies are not covered by the definition of establishment as
provided in the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 vide Section 1(3) or Section 3(a)
of the said Act is not tenable. That apart, it has been also asserted that Fish
Farmers' Development Agency [the respondent No.4 herein] has decided not to
provide the gratuity in contrast to the memorandum dated 15.09.2016
[Annexure-2 to this review petition]. By the said memorandum it has been
observed as under :
"Hence PSUs/Autonomous Bodies /Societies/Boards
/Corporations under different Departments of the State
Government are hereby directed to take necessary to
arrangement to pay the amount of gratuity to the eligible
employees/workers as per provisions of the Payment of
Gratuity (Amendment) Act, 2010(No.15 of 2010)."
3. It has been also observed in the said memorandum dated
15.09.2016 that the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 should not be extended
without prior concurrence of the Finance [Department] under any
circumstances. The said memorandum has been issued by the Labour
Directorate, Government of Tripura.
4. The grievance of the petitioner as revealed in the course of
submission is that in terms of the said memorandum, other Fish Farmers
Development Agencies have extended the benefits of Payment of Gratuity Act,
1972 to its employees.
5. Ms. R. Purakayastha, learned counsel appearing for the review
petitioner when questioned how this material, meaning the memorandum
dated 15.09.2016 can be considered as binding on the Fish Farmers'
Development Agencies, South Tripura, she has submitted that as, in terms of
the said memorandum, the other Fish Farmers Development Agencies
[Societies] the policy to extend the Payment of Gratuity Act. According to her,
the Fish Farmers' Development Agency represented by the respondent No.4
herein, has also the similar obligation to extend, which, however, this Court is
unable to accept.
Ms. Purakayastha, learned counsel has made his finally contened
that while considering the para-8 of the judgment, the said memorandum be
taken into consideration by the respondents. Towards that, an observation be
made by this Court.
6. From the other side, Mr. Kohinoor N Bhattacharjee, learned
counsel appearing for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection as
regards the maintainability of the review petition. According to him, the
grounds that have been cited by the review petitioner may be the grounds for
the appeal, but on those grounds, a review petition cannot be sustained. That
apart, those issues were considered in thread-bare in the impugned judgment.
Therefore, there is no discovery of any new material which can be
utilized for reviewing the judgment.
7. Having appreciated the submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties, this Court is of the view that there is no ground to review the order
[the judgment] dated 25.06.2018. However, as urged by the petitioner, the
respondent No.4 may consider the memorandum dated 15.09.2016 [Annexure-
7 to this review petition] at the time of considering the observation made in
para-8 of the said order.
No costs.
JUDGE
Sabyasachi B
