JUDGMENT :

Harish Tandon, J.

1. The instant appeal arises from an interlocutory order dated 29th January, 2021 passed by the Single Bench directing the appellants to pay the amount of gratuity accrued to the Respondent no. 7 on superannuation together with an interest within a specified time. Simultaneously, the liberty was also granted to the appellant to raise all points against the Respondent no. 6 towards the realisation of the said amount to be paid to the Respondent no. 7.

2. Though the order appears to be innocuous bearing in mind that the employee who superannuated has a legal right to receive the gratuity which is neither considered to be a bounty nor a bonanza but the statutory right which cannot be denied, but the interesting points have been raised by the appellants on the basis of the contract having entered into between the appellants and the Respondent no. 6 foistering upon the responsibility to pay the gratuity to the employees on superannuation whether in past, present or future. We thus invited the Counsels to canvas those points for better appreciation of the legal and/or contractual rights of the respective parties in relation to the payment of the gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (said Act).

3. The litigation has travelled in several forums at the behest of the rival parties relating to the payment of the gratuity admissible to the Respondent no. 7. It is undisputed that the Appellate no. 1 being a company owned a jute mill by the name of Gondalpara Jute Mill and the Respondent no. 7 was the employee who superannuated in the year 2005. Subsequently, the appellant was facing a financial crunch and decided to sell the said jute mill and an offer was received from the Respondent no. 6 to purchase the said situated jute mill and in furtherance therewith an agreement was entered upon on May 7, 2009. Pursuant to the said agreement, the possession of the said jute mill was handed over to the Respondent no. 6 on May 7, 2009 with several reciprocal obligations to which we are mainly concerned with, Clause 11 concerning the gratuity amount to be paid to the employee. The said clause postulates that the Respondent no. 6 would agree to bear all liabilities past, present and future on account of gratuity payable to the workman of the said jute mill to the extent of 14 crores with further stipulation that in the event the said amount exceeds the said figure, the appellant would reimburse the excess amount to the Respondent no. 6. The Sub-clause 11.2 further indicates that the Respondent no. 6 shall keep the appellant duly indemnified against the claim on account of gratuity to the extent of Rs. 14 crores. The dispute arose between the appellant and the Respondent no. 6 on the purported receipts handed over to the said respondent by the appellants, evincing the payment of the gratuity to the workman who attained superannuation prior to the said agreement. However, proceeding was initiated under Section 7(4) of the said Act at the behest of the Respondent no. 7 against the Respondent no. 6 that despite the attainment of superannuation the gratuity has not been paid and the controlling authority passed an Order on 8.5.2014 directing the Respondent no. 6 to pay the gratuity to the Respondent no. 7 with categorical finding that questions were raised on the genuinity of the documents produced before the said authority concerning the payment of the said gratuity. Despite the said order being passed by the said Controlling Authority under Section 7(4) of the Act, the payment was not made and ultimately the certificate was issued by the Controlling Authority on an application taken out by the Respondent no. 7 to the collector to recover the said amount together with a compound interest at such rate as the Central Government made specify from the date of the expiry of the prescribed time as arrears of land revenue. Pursuant to the said certificate issued under Section 8 of the said Act, the Certificate Officer under B