JUDGMENT : 

Rai Chattopadhyay, J. 

1. An interplay of the statutory provisions under section 4(1) and 4(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972, is in issue in the instant appeal and the appellant has challenged judgment of the Hon’ble Single Judge dated August 28, 2025, in writ petition No. WPA 4620 of 2025.

2. The respondent No.4 has been an employee with the appellant company vide an appointment letter dated August 15, 2012. He has been issued a show-cause notice dated July 21, 2022, by the appellant. An enquiry proceeding was initiated against him and he was served with the notice of enquiry. Immediately after receipt of the notice of enquiry, the said respondent has tendered resignation on August 15, 2022. According to the appellant his resignation has never been accepted by it, which the appellant has informed vide letter dated August 15, 2022.

3. As in the enquiry proceeding the respondent No.4 was found guilty of the misconduct as alleged against him, an order of termination was issued against him on October 11, 2022.

4. Admittedly vide an order dated November 21, 2022 issued under section 4(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972, the entire gratuity of the writ petitioner has been forfeited by the appellant company. The said respondent however, submitted an application before the statutory competent authority for payment of gratuity on January 16, 2023. In the said proceeding before the competent authority, the present appellant has contested. The Controlling Authority has passed an order dated February 09, 2024, directing the appellant to pay gratuity amount to the respondent to the tune of Rs. 1,37,308/-with 10% interest from October 11, 2022 to the date of actual payment. Appeal by the company before the statutory Appellate Authority has been turned down, vide its order dated December 30, 2024.

5. The writ petition filed subsequently by the present appellant has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Single Judge vide the impugned order dated August 28, 2025. Hence, this appeal.

6. Mr. Ranjay De, learned senior advocate for the appellant has submitted that the decisions of the Controlling as well as the Appellate Authorities under the statute have issued orders which suffer with gross legal and factual error. He says that the judgment of the Hon’ble Single Judge also suffers with illegality as the same is in contravention of the law settled in Mahanadi Coal Fields case [Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. Rabindranath Choubey reported in (2020) 18 SCC 71]. Mr. De, learned senior advocate has submitted that after the decision of the Supreme Court in Mahanadi Coal Fields case (supra) , it is now well settled that the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972, can govern the conditions concerning payment of gratuity; it cannot control and provide with respect to an employer right to hold a departmental enquiry (after retirement). He submits that neither the statutory Authorities nor the Court had any jurisdiction to go into the legality of the order of the disciplinary authority, which, according to him, is the gross error apparent on the face of the orders of the statutory Authorities. He says that the Hon’ble Single Judge has gone further to set aside the entire disciplinary proceeding, which is also an authorised and illegal order passed by the said Court. Attacking the judgment of the Hon’ble Single Judge as impugned in this appeal it has been submitted that the court has founded its judgement on the principles decided in Jaswant Singh Gill’s case [Jaswant Singh Gill Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. reported in (2007) 1 SCC 663], which is no further a good law after promulgation of the judgement in Mahanadi Coal Fields case (supra).

7. In this regard Mr. De has taken this Court elaborately to the relevant documents as annexed with the stay petition and also relies on the two Division Bench judgments of this Court including that delivered by this Bench, in (i) MSTC Limited Vs. Malay Sengupta & Others reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Cal 9649; and (ii) State Bank