Shri Bhanu Lodh vs Tripura Jute Mills Limited
2022 Latest Caselaw 946 Tri

                      HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                            AGARTALA
                             WP(C) 693 OF 2020
Shri Bhanu Lodh,
S/o Sachiram Lodh, R/o. Type-III/B/09, PWD Quarter Complex,
Gandhighat, P.S. West Tripura, West Tripura-799001.
                                                       ......Petitioner.
                                  Vrs.
1. Tripura Jute Mills Limited,
Represented by the Chairman cum Managing Director,
Office at Hapania, P.O. ONGC, Agartala,
West Tripura, Pin-799014.

2. The Chairman cum Managing Director,
Tripura Jute Mills Limited, Hapania, P.O. ONGC Agartala,
P.S. Amtali, District-West Tripura, Pin-799014.
                                                             ----Respondents

Present:

For the petitioner (s) : Ms. R. Purkayastha, Advocate. For the respondent (s) : Mr. D. Bhattacharya, Sr. Advocate.

Mr. P. Gautam, Advocate.

    Whether fit for            : No.
    reporting

             HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
15.11.2022
                          Judgment & Order (oral)

Heard Ms. R. Purkayastha, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Gautam, learned standing counsel appearing

for the respondents-Tripura Jute Mills Limited, led by Mr. D. Bhattacharya,

learned senior counsel.

2. The petitioner, by way of filing the present writ petition, has

prayed for paying him (1) unpaid balance amount of gratuity; (2) half pay

leave encashment; (3) medical re-imbursement and (4) refund of illegal

deduction of Rs.11,706/- from the earned leave encashment.

3. Ms. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner has

submitted that the petitioner's service is governed by "The Tripura Jute

Mills Limited Standing Rules, Regulations and Conditions of Service of the

Managerial Staff and Assistants/Officers/Supervisors [here-in-after referred

to as 'Jute Mills Standing Rules'] where provisions have been made for

dealing with the aforesaid subjects as claimed by the petitioner.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for

the respondents-Jute Mills Ltd. has contended that this standing rules is not

applicable to the employees of the Tripura Jute Mills Ltd. and in support of

his submission, he has referred to a case, decided on 25.10.2016 by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.10411 of 2016 arising out of

impugned judgment and order dated 08.04.2011 in writ appeal no. 74 of

2003 passed by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court at Agartala Bench,

Agartala. Further contention of the respondents-Jute Mills is that the

service conditions of the Jute Mills Officers/Assistants/Supervisors should

be at par with other public service units established by the Govt. of Tripura.

5. I have considered the relevant submissions advanced by the

learned counsels appearing for the parties. For convenience, at the outset, it

is pertinent to mention that learned counsel appearing on behalf of

respondents-Jute Mills could not produce a scrap of paper to justify his

submissions that the Jute Mills Officers/Assistants/Supervisors are not

governed by the Jute Mills Standing Rules. As such, the Tripura Jute Mills

Standing Rules stands good to govern the employees of the Tripura Jute

Mills Ltd. I have perused the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

of India in Civil Appeal No. 10411 of 2016 arising out of SLP(C)

No.20837 of 2011 titled as State of Tripura & Ors.(appellant) Vrs. The

Tripura Jute Mills Officers Association & Ors.(respondents). After

perusal of the said order, it comes to fore that the said order is only

confined to grant the benefit of 4th Pay Commission to the members of the

Tripura Jute Mills Officers Association w.e.f. 01.01.1996 along with

interest. Nowhere it is stated that service conditions of the members of the

Tripura Jute Mills Ltd. would not be governed by the Tripura Jute Mills

Standing Rules.

6. Now, coming to the first question regarding payment of

gratuity, it is noticed that Rule 9.5 of Jute Mills Standing Rules deals with

gratuity, which is reproduced here-in-below, for convenience, in extenso:

"9.5 GRATUITY:

Each staff on completion of minimum five years of service be entitled to gratuity on resignation, retirement, termination or dismissal. The gratuity shall be calculated and paid at the rate of 15 days last drawn salary (exclusive of HRA and CA, if he was paid any) for each completed year of service for a maximum period of 40 years or completed service irrespective gratuity amount limit. For the purpose of calculating the period of completed, any period of service below six months shall not be taken into account but any such period exceeding six months shall be taken as a completed as a completed year of service."

7. Learned counsel appearing for the Jute Mills has strenuously

argued that the petitioner would come within the purview of the provisions

of the Payment of Gratuity Act,1972 since it is a Central Act. I am unable

to agree with this submission of learned counsel for the respondents-Jute

Mills Ltd. for the reason that sub-section (5) of section 4 of the Payment of

Gratuity Act,1972 clearly and categorically contemplates that nothing in

this section shall affect the right of an employee to receive better terms of

gratuity under any award or agreement or contract with employer.

8. According to learned counsel of the petitioner, the Tripura Jute

Mills Standing Rules envisages better schematic pattern as regards the

payment of gratuity and as such, the employees of Tripura Jute Mills Ltd.

have accepted the Jute Mills Standing Rules and raised their claims in

terms of Rule 9.5 of Tripura Jute Mills Standing Rules. The claim of the

petitioner is that his service condition provides that payment of gratuity

would be governed by Rule 9.5 of Tripura Jute Mills Standing Rules and

on the basis of which he is entitled to receive Rs.24,95,942/- (Rupees

twenty four lakhs ninety five thousand nine hundred forty two) only. Out of

this, the respondents-Tripura Jute Mills Ltd. had paid Rs.20,00,000/-

(Rupees twenty lakhs) only on two different occasions in terms of Jute

Mills Standing Rules and last payment of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten

lakhs) was paid on 19.05.2022. So, the petitioner is entitled to receive the

balance amount of Rs.4,95,942/- (Rupees four lakhs ninety five thousand

nine hundred forty two) only.

9. In my opinion, under Rule 9.5 of Tripura Jute Mills Standing

Rules, the petitioner is entitled to receive the balance amount of

Rs.4,95,942/- along with interest. Accordingly, the issue no.(1) has been

decided in favour of the petitioner that he is entitled to gratuity in terms of

Rule 9.5 of Tripura Jute Mills Standing Rules and not under the Payment of

Gratuity Act, 1972 since Tripura Jute Mills Ltd. has prescribed better

scheme than that of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

10. Next, coming to the second question as regards the entitlement

of half-pay leave encashment, it is noticed that Rule 9.6(C) deals with the

half pay leave, which is reproduced here-in-below, in extenso, for

convenience:

"9.6 (c) HALF PAY LEAVE

It is admissible at the rate of 20 days for every completed year of services. Service includes all periods of leave of all kinds.

                 9.6(c) 1.    ***                ***          ***
                 9.6(c) 2.     ***               ***          ***

                 9.6(c) 3.

Accumulation of Half pay leave: Non avail accrued half pay leave shall be accumulated/credited in the leave account of staff concern."

11. On this point also, learned counsel appearing for the

respondents-Tripura Jute Mills Ltd. submits that, this condition of service

would be governed at par other PSUs established by the Govt. of Tripura. I

am not at all convinced with this submission of learned counsel appearing

for Tripura Jute Mills Ltd. as I have already held that service condition of

the employees of the Tripura Jute Mills Ltd. are regulated by its own rules

and regulations which is further confirmed by the Managing Director of

Tripura Jute Mills Ltd. under Memorandum dated 30th April, 2022 wherein

it was resolved as under:

"TRIPURA JUTE MILLS LIMITED A GOVT. OF TRIPURA UNDERTAKING F.NO.TJ/PD(16)/21 The 30th April, 2002.

MEMORANDUM

Board of Directors of the Company in its 153rd Meeting held on 16-01-2002 "RESOLVED THAT-Medical Leave Encashment in Tripura Jute Mills Ltd. shall stand and continue."

Sd/-

(M.L.DAS) MANAGING DIRECTOR"

12. In view of this, I direct the respondents-Tripura Jute Mills Ltd.

to examine the matter and calculate the petitioner's entitlement on half pay

leave encashment in terms of Rule 9.6(c)3 read with Rule 27.1(c) of

Tripura Jute Mills Standing Rules.

13. Thirdly, I have considered the issue of entitlement of medical

re-imbursement of the petitioner. After perusal of the entire writ petition, I

find that the petitioner could not make any satisfactory explanation under

what emergent or compelling circumstances/situations the petitioner got his

wife admitted in All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Delhi. It is not

clear what prevented the petitioner from obtaining referral certificate from

the standing medical board for referral constituted by the Govt. of Tripura,

and as such, this claim of the petitioner is rejected.

14. Fourthly, whether the petitioner is entitled to get refund

Rs.11,706/- which was deducted from his earned leave encashment. In this

regard, learned counsel appearing for the Tripura Jute Mills Ltd. has

submitted that this amount was due to the petitioner since he borrowed loan

from Tripura Jute Mills Ltd. for certain purpose.

On the contrary, it is the claim of the petitioner that he paid all

the dues out of loan amount he borrowed from the respondents during his

service time, and at the time of retirement, the respondents had never raised

any claim out of any due to the petitioner.

15. However, without considering this factual aspect, I direct the

respondents-Tripura Jute Mills Ltd. to re-examine the issue as regards the

entitlement of the petitioner to refund the said amount of Rs.11,706/-.

16. The offshoot of the aforesaid discussion is that Tripura Jute

Mills Ltd. has framed its own rules to regulate the service conditions of its

employees and providing better schematic pattern for payment of gratuity

than that of the provisions as prescribed under the Payment of Gratuity

(Amendment) Act, 2018. It is made clear that under sub-section 5 of

section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, any establishment or

organization can make better provision as regards payment of gratuity for

its employees and in that case, the Act of 1972 would not affect such

schematic pattern for the interest of the employees of such establishment or

organization.

17. Accordingly, it is further made clear that the balance amount

of gratuity of Rs.4,95,942/- as granted to the petitioner shall carry interest

@ 4% per annum. If any payment is due to the petitioner out of half pay

leave, it shall also carry interest @ 4% per annum. It is also evinced that

Rs.10,00,000/- out of gratuity has been paid only in the month of May,

2022 which was due to the petitioner at the time of his retirement. In view

of this, that amount of Rs.10,00,000/- shall also carry interest @ 4% per

annum from the date it fell due till the date of payment. The entire exercise

as aforesaid shall be completed within a period of three months from the

date of receipt of a copy of this order by the respondents.

18. With the above observations and directions, the instant writ

petition, accordingly, stands allowed and disposed.

JUDGE

sanjay