Back
2012 Supreme(Cal) 716
High Court Of Calcutta
J.K. Biswas, J.
Saroj Kumar Das : Appellant
Versus
State Of West Bengal : Respondent
W.P.No.16765(W) of 2012
Decided On : Aug 06, 2012
Susmita Dey, Sm Samim Ullah, Pantu Deb Roy
The availability of a statutory remedy does not bar seeking the art.226 remedy, and the respondent is liable to pay the petitioner all the benefits to which he is entitled.
Headnote:
Gratuity - Employee Benefits - The court ordered the respondent to pay the petitioner gratuity, leave salary, etc. with interest at the rate of 7% p.a. from January 1, 2010, within four weeks from the date of the order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner alleged that the respondents were liable to pay him salary arrears, gratuity, leave salary, etc. and had not paid the benefits despite not disputing his entitlement and their liability.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's entitlement to gratuity and the liability of the respondent to pay gratuity were undisputed. The financial crisis of the respondent was not a ground to withhold the petitioner's benefits, causing irreparable loss and harassment.
Issues: The issues involved the non-payment of salary arrears, gratuity, and leave salary by the respondent despite the petitioner's entitlement and their liability.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the availability of a statutory remedy does not bar seeking the art.226 remedy, and ordered the respondent to pay the petitioner all the benefits to which he is entitled, along with interest at the rate of 7% p.a.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the WP by directing the respondent to pay the petitioner gratuity, leave salary, etc. according to law with interest at the rate of 7% p.a. from January 1, 2010, within four weeks from the date the order is served on it. No costs were awarded.
1. THE Court : The petitioner in this WP under art.226 dated July 30, 2012 is alleging that for undisclosed reasons the respondents liable to pay him salary arrears, gratuity, leave salary, etc. and not disputing his entitlement and their liability have not paid the benefits.
2. IT is not disputed that the petitioner retired from services of Calcutta State Transport Corporation (in short CSTC) on December 31, 2009, and that CSTC incurred an obligation to pay him gratuity, leave salary, etc. on January 1, 2010. Nor is it disputed that CSTC has not paid him the benefits.
3. MS Dey appearing for the petitioner submits that she has instructions not to press the salary arrears issue in this WP and to seek liberty to raise the issue, if necessary, with CSTC. In view of this submission, I think I can take up the WP, for I have determination with respect to the other issues.
4. MR Deb Roy appearing for CSTC submits that the petitioner was paid in excess of his entitlement; that the amount payable could not be paid for acute financial crisis; and that for gratuity the petitioner had a remedy under s.8 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. He has relied on an unreported Division Bench decision dated March 27, 2012 in MAT No.112 of 2012 (The Managing Director, CTC Ltd. and Ors. v. Munshi Abdul Rouf and Ors.).
5. IN my opinion, financial crisis, if any, of CSTC is not a ground to say that it was or is entitled to withhold the petitioner's gratuity, leave salary, etc. It was under an obligation to pay the benefits on January 1, 2010. By withholding the benefits it has caused irreparable loss and harassment to the petitioner. This is a litigation it has generated without any valid reason.
6. THE plea that for gratuity the petitioner had a remedy under s.8 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 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. Besides, the petitioner's entitlement to gratuity and liability of CSTC to pay gratuity both are undisputed.
7. IN my opinion, CSTC should be ordered to pay the petitioner all the benefits to which he is entitled. The relied on Division Bench decision does not entitle CSTC to withhold 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.
8. FOR these reasons, I dispose of the WP directing CSTC to pay the petitioner gratuity, leave salary, etc. according to law with interest at the rate of 7% p.a. from January 1, 2010, within four weeks from the date this order is served on it. No costs.
