The Court emphasized the importance of employer-employee relationship and the liability of the petitioner company in paying the gratuity due to the employee.

JUDGMENT

Suvra Ghosh, J. - The prayers of the writ petitioner are as hereunder:-

'(a) Issue of a Writ of Madamus and/or Writ in the nature thereof commanding the Respondent No. 1 and 2 or each one of them forthwith cancel, set aside, withdraw and/or rescind the impugned Orders being Annexure-P/7, Annexure-P/14 and Annexure- P/15 respectively.

(c) Issue of a Writ of Prohibition and/or Writ in the nature thereof commanding the Respondents not to take any steps or any further step pursuant to the impugned Orders Annexure-P/7, Annexure-P/14 and Annexure- P/15 respectively till the disposal of the instant Application.'

2. By virtue of an agreement dated 5th April, 1997, the petitioner company acquired Bally Jute Mill from M/s. Birla Jute and Industries Limited and a registered indenture of conveyance was made on 28th February, 2003. The said document set out the responsibilities of the petitioner company in connection with the employees as on 9th April, 1997. Sri Siwpujan Roy, the third respondent herein, was an employee under M/s. Birla Jute and Industries Limited from 29th November, 1966 and superannuated on 16th January, 1996. The said employee applied for payment of gratuity in Form-I on 21st January, 2013 and submitted a further application in Form-N before the Controlling Authority on 22nd February, 2013. The petitioner contested the gratuity case before the Controlling Authority by filing a written statement. Upon hearing the parties, the Controlling Authority, by an order passed on 28th January, 2019, allowed the prayer of the third respondent and directed the petitioner company to pay Rs. 1, 45,637/- to the third respondent-employee towards gratuity due to him along with admissible interest within thirty days from the date of receipt of the notice in Form-R as provided under Rule 17 of the West Bengal Payment of Gratuity Rules, 1973. The said order was carried in appeal by this writ petitioner company before the Appellate Authority and by an order dated 20th April, 2021, the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of the Controlling Authority.

3. At the outset, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that though there was inordinate delay on the part of the employee in applying for payment of gratuity in Form-I and Form-N, learned counsel does not wish to oppose the prayer of the employee on this ground as the Payment of Gratuity Act is a beneficial legislation and requires liberal consideration. Learned counsel submits that the company has no objection if the employee is granted the gratuity due to him. But at the same time the company denies responsibility of payment of the said amount to the employee for the reason that the company came into existence only on 25th September, 1998 whereas the third respondent retired from M/s. Birla Jute and Industries Limited on 16th January, 1996. There was no employer-employee relationship between the parties during the entire period of employment of the respondent till his superannuation and the petitioner company is not liable to pay the gratuity dues of respondent-employee. The attendance card of the respondent indicates that he was an employee under Birla Jute and Industries Limited at Bally Jute Mills Unit. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the following authorities in support of his contention: -

(i) Management of KSRTC TH. Chief Law Officer v/s. R. Krishna Reddy reported in LAWS(SC) 2006 11 54,

(ii) Sugandhi (Dead) By L. Rs. And Ors. v/s. P. Rajkumar reported in LAWS(SC) 2020 10 52,

(iii) Susovan Pand v/s. Chairman Uco Bank reported in LAWS(CAL) 2013 7 113,

(iv) Balwant Rai Saluja And Anr. v/s. Air India Ltd. And Ors. reported in LAWS(SC) 2014 8 51.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the third respondent-employee has submitted that as the issue has been decided by the Controlling Authority as well as Appellate Authority on merits upon consideration of the evidence produced by both the parties and submission made on behalf of the parties, this Court , in e