2024 Supreme(Cal) 626
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.
Midnapur Dist. Service cum Marketing and Industrial Co-operative Union Ltd. – Petitioner
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors. – Respondents
WPA 30325 of 2015
Decided On : 09-01-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. D.K.Sengupta, Ms. Sweta Saha
The Appellate Authority's order must provide reasoned findings and consider the contentions of the parties.
Headnote:
Payment of Gratuity Act - Challenge to order passed by Controlling Authority and Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - Rule 106 (19) of the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Rules, 2011 - The court directed the Appellate Authority to re-hear the appeal and dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a cooperative society, challenged the order passed by the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The petitioner claimed that it had never employed more than 7 employees and was not covered under the provisions of the said Act. The respondent no. 7, despite being aware that he is not entitled to gratuity, had made an application before the Controlling Authority. The petitioner contested the proceeding and raised objections, but the Controlling Authority overruled the objections and determined the quantum of gratuity payable. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal without considering the petitioner's contention.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Appellate Authority's order was unsustainable in law as no reasons were assigned for agreeing with the findings of the Controlling Authority. The court directed the Appellate Authority to re-hear the appeal and dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order.
Issues: Challenge to order under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - Applicability of the Act to cooperative societies - Unsustainability of the Appellate Authority's order
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Appellate Authority's order was unsustainable in law as no reasons were assigned for agreeing with the findings of the Controlling Authority. The court directed the Appellate Authority to re-hear the appeal and dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order.
Final Decision: The court set aside the Appellate Authority's order and remanded the matter back to the Appellate Authority for re-hearing the appeal and passing a reasoned order within a specified period.
JUDGMENT :
Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed, inter alia, challenging the order passed by the Controlling Authority as also by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”).
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts are that the petitioner is a cooperative society and claims that it had never employed more than 7 employees at a particular point of time and is otherwise not covered under the provisions of the said Act. It is also the case of the petitioner that the respondent no. 7, despite being aware that he is not entitled to gratuity, had made an application before the Controlling Authority under the provisions of the said Act. Although, the petitioner had contested such proceeding and had raised objections, the Controlling Authority by overruling the objections raised by the petitioner was, inter alia, pleased to determine the quantum of gratuity payable by the petitioner to the respondent no. 7 vide her order dated 10th March, 2015 and by a notice in Form-‘R’ of even date had called upon the petitioner to make payment of the determination so made by the Controlling Authority.
3. Being aggrieved, the petitioner had preferred a statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority. Simultaneously, with the filing of the said appeal the petitioner had also, as required, deposited the amount determined by the Controlling Authority being the pre-deposit for maintaining such appeal with the Appellate Authority. It is also the petitioner’s case that the Appellate Authority without considering the petitioner’s contention, by a cryptic order dated 23rd September, 2015 had dismissed the said appeal.
4. Mr. Sengupta, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the Appellate Authority is unsustainable in law. No reasons had been assigned in the aforesaid order as to why the Appellate Authority agrees with the findings returned by the Controlling Authority. By placing reliance on annexures P6 and P7, it is submitted that most of the employees who were attached to the petitioner have since retired and the same would further demonstrate that at no point of time the employees strength of the petitioner had exceeded 7 in number.
5. Although, it has been the contention of the petitioner in the writ petition that the said Act do not apply to the cooperative societies at all, yet Mr. Sengupta in his usual fairness submits that if the cooperative society otherwise comes within the purview of the said Act, the provisions of the said Act, in terms of Rule 106 (19) of the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Rules, 2011, can be made applicable insofar as the cooperative societies are concerned.
6. Although, this matter has come up for consideration, the respondents are not represented. No accommodation has also been sought for on behalf of the respondents.
7. Heard the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and considered the materials on record.
8. In this case, it is noted that the respondent no. 7 was admittedly an employee of the petitioner. He had retired on 31st January, 2009. The said respondent had, however, applied before the Controlling Authority by filing an application in Form-‘N’ for determination of the amount of gratuity payable to him. The petitioner had duly contested such proceeding by filing written statement. In course of hearing before the Controlling Authority, the petitioner raised objections, inter alia, contending that the provisions of the said Act cannot be made applicable to the petitioner, since at no point of time the petitioner engaged more than 10 or more employees on a particular date of the preceding 12 months.
9. In course of examination-in-chief, it had been the contention of the respondent no.7 that since, 17th October, 1974 the petitioner had 8 branches, centers and trade points, which are as follows :-
“1) Blacksmithy and carpentry Centre (Fully Govt. Aided) situated at Vill-Dakshin chara S