Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR, RAI CHATTOPADHYAY
Narendra Pal Seth – Appellant
Versus
Baynee Industries – Respondent
Judgment :
Rai Chattopadhyay, J.
1. A judgment and order of the Hon’ble Single Judge dated February 18, 2025 in WPA 3101 of 2025, is under challenge in the instant appeal. The respondent No.1/writ petitioner/company, had challenged the following before the Hon’ble Single Judge in the said writ petition: (i) order dated May 25, 2022 passed by the Controlling Authority; (ii) order dated September 30, 2024 passed by the Appellate Authority; and (iii) orders dated October 28, 2022 and November 21, 2024 passed by the Certificate Officer.
2. In the order dated May 25, 2022, the Controlling Authority has held that the appellant/workman is entitled to payment of gratuity for 41 years of service; that the appellant would be entitled to Rs. 7,35,038/- plus interest admissible under section 7(3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act amounting to Rs. 6,28,030/-, from April 17, 2014 to May 25, 2022, totalling a sum of Rs. 14,13,068/- . He has further directed that the sum of Rs. 14,13,068/- to be paid to the appellant, within 30 days. This order was challenged in the writ petition.
3. An appeal was preferred by the company against the order of the Controlling Authority dated May 25, 2022. The Appellate
The gratuity payable to an employee is governed by the law applicable at their date of retirement, and amounts exceeding the statutory ceiling limit are recoverable.
Gratuity entitlements exceed statutory limits if stipulated in insurance contracts, and banks are required to comply with contractual obligations under the Payment of Gratuity Act.
A civil suit for recovery of excess gratuity payments is maintainable despite provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, as it addresses overpayment rather than non-payment.
Gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 must include entire continuous service, including stop-gap employment, unless exempted by the appropriate Government.
Once full amount of gratuity becomes payable to the employee due to the consequences of law, then the right to get statutory interest in terms of Section 7(3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, cannot ....
Employer cannot withhold gratuity for unauthorized retention of quarters post-retirement; statutory interest of 10% applies for delayed payment.
Interpreting Act unequivocally indicate that payment of gratuity would not depend upon employee filing an application before employer demanding gratuity but will have to be paid immediately on cessat....
The mandatory obligation of employers to pay gratuity within the specified timeframe includes the responsibility to pay interest on delayed payments, as established by the Payment of Gratuity Act.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
