A presumption of continuous employment for gratuity entitlement can be drawn when the employer fails to produce critical work records, affirming the workman's claim rights.

JUDGMENT :

Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.

1. The writ application has been preferred by the petitioner workman praying for setting aside of the order dated 17.03.2025 passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

2. Vide the said order under challenge the Appellate Authority affirmed the order of the Controlling Authority dated 22.08.2022 in Gratuity Case No. G-51/18. The Controlling Authority while considering the prayer of the petitioner for his gratuity held as follows:-

“…………In the present case the workman had discharged his initial onus by producing whatever documents available with him and in his custody to establish that he was on employment for 240 days in a year. The employer is in possession of the best evidence which he could not produce. So an adverse inference may be drawn in view of the failure on the part of the employer to produce the original service record. While the employer who is statutorily bound to maintain the attendance registers of his employees fails to produce the same, a poor jute mill worker being in a weaker position to his employer is not expected to preserve the details of service records after his retirement.

Given above, drawing an inverse inference, I am left with no other option but to hold that the employer had failed to establish that the workman had not rendered continuous service from 16.04.1980 to 01.07.2018 in the O.P company, they could only establish that he had worked for less than 240 days for 15 years.

Moreover, the employer himself admitted that the workman, Jay Chandar Shah is entitled for gratuity of 9 years. The employer had not paid the said amount of gratuity to the workman nor had he deposited with the Controlling Authority such amount as he admitted to be payable by him as gratuity as per sec 7(4) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

The amount of entitled gratuity of the worker namely Jay Chandar Shah is determined as follows:-

The O.P failed to make even part payment of gratuity amount of Rs. 1,62,385/- to the applicant due to no fault of the applicant. Further, O.P had not obtained any permission in writing from the Controlling Authority for any delayed payment u/s 7 (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

Hence, I am of the opinion that as per Sub-Section 3A of Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, the workman is entitled to simple interest @ 10% per annum on his gratuity amount. Calculation of interest is detailed below:-

The applicant, Jay Chandar Shah, is, therefore, entitled to Rs. 2,28,095/- (Rs. 1,62,385/- + Rs. 65,710/-). The OP company M/s Murlidhar Ratanlal Exports Ltd, Unit: India Jute Mill, Serampore, Dist- Hooghly, Pin-712201 is hereby directed to pay the applicant, Jay Chandar Shah Rs. 2,28,095/- (Two Lakh Twenty Eight Thousand Ninety Five) only as per sub-section 3A of section 7 of the payment of Gratuity Act 1972 within 30 days from the date of receipt of the direction in Form ’R’ along with this findings.”

3. While deciding the said claim of gratuity, the Controlling Authority held that the company could establish that the employee worked for less than 240 days for 15 years.

4. Thus, the Controlling Authority granted gratuity by deducting 15 years from the total period of service being 38 years and granted gratuity as applicable for 23 years.

5. The relevant finding for deducting the said period of 15 years is as follows:-

“…