Back
2024 Supreme(Cal) 1281
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Arindam Mukherejee, J.
Debashish Basu – Petitioner
Versus
State Of West Bengal & Others – Respondents
W.P.A 7693 of 2024
Decided On : 09-05-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Saibalendu Bhowmik, Mr. Biplab Guha, Mr. Rajsekhar Basu, Mr. Subrata Bhattacharjee.
For the Respondent: Mr. Subhendu Bandyopadhyay, Mr. Subhendu Sengupta, Mr. Aditya Roy.
IMPORTANT POINT
Superannuation results in a break in service, and subsequent contractual employment does not qualify for gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act.
Headnote:
Gratuity - Employment - Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - Sections 4, 7(7), 14 - The court interpreted the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, emphasizing that superannuation leads to a break in service, thus affecting eligibility for gratuity.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an employee, sought to claim gratuity after being denied by the Appellate Authority, arguing that his continuous service exceeded five years despite a break due to superannuation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner’s employment ceased upon superannuation, and subsequent contractual engagements did not constitute continuous service, thus denying the gratuity claim.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act despite a break in service due to superannuation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that superannuation results in a complete severance of the employer-employee relationship, and subsequent contractual employment does not count towards continuous service for gratuity eligibility.
Result: The writ petition is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Arindam Mukherjee, J.
1. The writ petition is at the instance of an employee for setting aside the order dated 8th June 2023 of the Appellate Authority under the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 1972 Act). The appeal arose from the rejection of petitioner’s claim for gratuity by the Controlling Authority.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he had been appointed as the Senior Manager Supply Chain Management of the respondent no.5 on 28th February, 2014. The petitioner underwent a six months probation period and was thereafter confirmed by a letter dated August 6, 2014. The petitioner reached his superannuation age on 3rd June, 2016 and was thereafter engaged in the respondent no.5 without any break on reaching the age of superannuation.
3. The petitioner claims there was no break in service as immediately from the next day of his superannuation, he continued to work in the respondent no.5, may be on different terms and on such agreement being renewed yearly, had worked up till 30th January, 2020. The petitioner claims that the period he worked as a permanent employee should be treated as his continuous service. The petitioner, therefor, has worked for more than 5 years and as such, the petitioner is entitled to gratuity under the provisions of the 1972 Act. The petitioner states that in the year 2017 his remuneration was Rs. 46,000/-(Rupees Forty Six thousand) only per month that remuneration was further enhanced to Rs. 52000 per month in 2019 along with his designation to the post of AGM-Supply Chain Management.
4. The petitioner also states that on 30th January, 2020 he was ultimately retired and released from the said company after completion of more or less 5 years 11 months 27 days continues service with the said respondent no. 5 company. The petitioner also says that since the respondent no. 5 company had not taken any steps to release the gratuity amount in favour of the petitioner and even after waiting for more than one year, the petitioner found no other alternative but to file one application before the Labour Commissioner, EL & MW Section, Government of West Bengal on 24th March, 2021 under the provisions of Rule 7 of the West Bengal Payment of Gratuity Rules, 1973 but the respondent no. 5 company refused to pay any gratuity amount to the petitioner.
5. The Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority have turned down the petitioner’s prayer by holding that the permanent employment on the petitioner having attained the age of superannuation came to an end. The subsequent engagement even though was from the next date of superannuation but is a different agreement and as such, it cannot be said to be a continuous one from 28th February, 2014 for which 5 years continuous service has been rendered by the petitioner.
6. The petitioner states that the controlling authority heard the petitioner as well as respondent no. 5 company and passed an Order on 17th February 2022 by rejecting the prayer for gratuity of the petitioner. The Controlling Authority while doing so observed that in Serial No. 9 of contract of service it has been clearly mentioned that during the contractual period employee was not eligible for gratuity. The employee agreed to this term on a clear understanding that the employment during the entire period is not permanent in nature.
7. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Order dated 17th February 2022, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 7 (7) of the 1972 Act before the Learned Appellate Authority on 27th April, 2022.The Appellate Authority by an order dated 8th June, 2023 has rejected the prayer and appeal of the petitioner.
8. The petitioner states that in the said Order dated 8th June, 2023 the Appellate Authority stated that in the instant case the full and final settlement is arrived at between the worker and management. Since the full and final settlement has been arrived at Shri Debasish Basu, appellant is not entitled to receive
