Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 3]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Shiv Murat Bari vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 24 April, 2013

Author: Jayanta Kumar Biswas

Bench: Jayanta Kumar Biswas

                     In The High Court At Calcutta
                            Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
                                     Appellate Side


Present : The Hon'ble Mr Justice Jayanta Kumar Biswas

                                W.P.No.11439(W) of 2013
                                     Shiv Murat Bari
                                           -vs-
                               State of West Bengal & Ors.

       Mr. Manas Kumar Ghosh
       Ms. Susmita Dey (Basu)                             ...for the petitioner

       Ms. Sukla Das Chandra                                   ...for the State

       Mr. Pantu Deb Roy
       Mr. S. Guha Biswas                               ...for the Corporation

Heard on : April 24, 2013

Judgment on : April 24, 2013

       The Court : The allegation in this WP is that for undisclosed reasons the
respondents have withheld payment of terminal benefits.

Mr Deb Roy appearing for the employer has submitted that certain benefits could not be paid for acute financial crisis; and that for gratuity a remedy under s.8 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 was available. He has relied on an unreported Division Bench decision dated March 27, 2012 in an MAT No.112 of 2012.

In my opinion, financial crisis, if any, of the employer is no ground to say that it is entitled to withhold payment of terminal benefits of its employees. In this case it incurred the obligation to pay the benefits in question on August 1, 2011. By withholding the payment it caused loss and harassment. This is a litigation it has generated without any valid reason.

The plea that for gratuity a remedy under s.8 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 was available is without any merit. Availability of a statutory remedy such as the one under s.8 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is not a bar to seek the art.226 remedy, if the entitlement to gratuity and liability to pay gratuity both are undisputed. And that is the case here.

In my opinion, the employer should be ordered to pay all the payable terminal benefits. The relied on Division Bench decision does not entitle it to withhold payment of the benefits or pay them in the manner it wishes. It is liable to pay interest. I think interest, if ordered at the rate of 7% p.a., will be fair and reasonable.

For these reasons, I dispose of the WP directing the employer to pay all the payable terminal benefits with 7% p.a. interest from August 1, 2011, within four weeks from the date this order is served. No costs. Certified xerox.

(Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J) sb