High Court Of Calcutta
Pratap Kumar Ray
RABINDRA NATH BANERJEE - Appellant
Versus
CERTIFICATE OFFICER - Respondent
W. P. 405 (W) Of 2004
Decided On : 12/22/2004
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS - ARTICLE 21 - RETIREMENT BENEFITS - RIGHT TO GRATUITY - PAYMENTS OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972 - SECTION 14 - SICK INDUSTRIAL COMPANIES (SPECIAL PROVISIONS) ACT, 1985 - SECTION 22 - WHETHER SECTION 22 OF SICA, 1985 BARS RECOVERY OF GRATUITY UNDER THE PAYMENTS OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972 - HELD, NO.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a retired employee of Dunlop India Limited, filed a writ petition seeking directions to the respondents to initiate recovery proceedings and realize the gratuity amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- along with interest from the company and send the same to the Controlling Authority for disbursement to the petitioner. The company resisted the petition on the ground that due to Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA, 1985), no recovery proceeding could be initiated.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that Section 22 of SICA, 1985 does not bar the recovery of gratuity under the Payments of Gratuity Act, 1972. The court reasoned that the Payments of Gratuity Act, 1972 is a special act providing for the payment of gratuity to retired employees and its provisions cannot be overridden by a subsequent legislation like SICA, 1985. The court further held that the right to gratuity is an emanated fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and cannot be curtailed by any legislation.
Issues: Whether Section 22 of SICA, 1985 bars the recovery of gratuity under the Payments of Gratuity Act, 1972.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Payments of Gratuity Act, 1972 is a special act providing for the payment of gratuity to retired employees and its provisions cannot be overridden by a subsequent legislation like SICA, 1985. The court further held that the right to gratuity is an emanated fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and cannot be curtailed by any legislation.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to initiate recovery proceedings and realize the gratuity amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- along with interest from the company and send the same to the Controlling Authority for disbursement to the petitioner.
( 1 ) IN this writ application the petitioner a retired employee of Dunlop India limited, a company duly incorporated under the provisions of the Companies act, 1956, he prayed the following reliefs : (A) Writ and/or writs in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent No. 1 to act in accordance with law and to consider the representation of your petitioner and/or to initiate the certificate and/or recovery proceedings forthwith as against the said company and to realize the said sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- along with simple interest 10% per annum from 1st June, 1998 till the date of payment being the gratuity of your petitioner which has already been adjudicated by the controlling Authority as stated hereinabove; (B) Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing and/or commanding the respondent No. 1 to send the said sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- along with simple interest @ 10% per annum from 1st June, 1998 till the date of payment being the gratuity of your petitioner to the Controlling Authority after realizing the same from the said company so that the same can be paid to the petitioner forthwith; (C) Writ in the nature of Mandamus be issued commanding the controlling Authority to produce and/or furnish the original requisition and/or order and/or records and/or documents before the respondent no. 1 so that the respondent No. 1 can initiate the recovery proceedings against the company forthwith; (D) Writ in the nature of prohibition commanding the respondent No. 1 from not delaying the matter in initiating the certificate and/or recovery proceedings as against the said company for realizing the said sum of rs. 3,50,000/- along with simple interest @ 10% per annum from 1st june, 1998 till the date of payment being the gratuity of your petitioner as has already been adjudicated by the Controlling Authority as stated hereinbefore; (E) Writ in the nature of Certiorari commanding the respondent No. 1 and/or the Controlling Authority to produce and/or transmit all the relevant records, papers, documents pertinent to the instant case before this Hon'ble Court so that conscionable justice can be made by directing the respondent No. 1 to initiate recovery and/or certificate proceedings as against the company for realizing the said sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- along with simple interest @ 10% per annum from 1st June, 1998 till the date of payment being the gratuity of your petitioner; (F) An ad-interim order of injunction restraining the BIFR Authority not to take any further action pursuant to the publication made in the newspaper on 22nd December, 2003 being Annexure "p11" to this petition; (G) Rule NISI in terms of the prayers above; (H) Rule be made absolute if no cause or inadequate cause is shown; (I) the respondent No. 1 be directed forthwith to initiate recovery and/or certificate proceedings as against the said company and to realize the said sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- along with simple interest @ 10% per annum from 1st June, 1998 till the date of payment being the gratuity of the petitioner and to send the same to the Controlling authority; (J) The Controlling Authority be directed to produce/furnish the original requisition and/or order and/or necessary records and papers before the respondent No. 1 forthwith; (K) Ad-interim order in terms of prayers above; (I) Costs of and incidental to this application be paid by the respondent No. 1; (M) such further or other orders be made and/or direction or directions be given as to this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.
( 2 ) THIS application has been opposed by filing affidavit by the respondent No. 3, contending, inter alia, that since the respondent company being a sick industry awaiting rehabilitation programme by approval of the scheme under the provisions of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) act, 1985 hereinafter referred to as SICA, 1985, under Section 22 of the said act, no recovery proceeding could be initiated.
( 3 ) THE short question involved in this case
REFERRED TO : Som Prakash Rekhi v. Union of India and Anr.
R. Kapur v. Director of Inspection (Painting And Publication) Income Tax and Anr.
Gorakhpur University and Ors. v. Dr. Shit/a Prasad Nagendra and Ors.
State of Kerala and Ors. v. M. Padmanabhan Nair
Gram Panchayat and Anr. v. Shree Vallabh Glass Works Ltd. and Ors.
Deputy Commercial Tax Officer and Ors. v. Corromandal Pharmaceuticals and Ors.
Maharashtra Tubes Ltd. v. State Industrial and Investment Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd.
Union of India and Anr. v. G. Ganayutham
Chintamanrao and Anr. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
The State of Madras v. V. G. Row
Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.