The court affirmed the applicability of revised gratuity limits as per the Central Government notification and ruled that financial constraints do not exempt employers from timely payment of gratuity to retiring employees.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned GA assisted by Mr. P. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the appellants-TRTC, the respondents in the writ petition. Also heard Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. K. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, writ petitioner. For convenience, the parties are referred to here-in-below according to their original status in the writ petition.

2. The respondents-TRTC have preferred the present appeal challenging the legality and validity of the judgment and order dated 20.02.2020, wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court had passed an order directing the respondent-TRTC to release the gratuity payable to the writ-petitioner at the rate of Rs. 20,00,000/- along with simple interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum after completion of 1 (one) month from the date of retirement till actual payment.

3. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned GA has submitted that the respondents-TRTC have paid gratuity to the writ-petitioner considering the ceiling limit at Rs. 10,00,000/-. During his argument, learned GA has relied upon Section 4 -A of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

4. We are at a loss to understand as to how Section 4 -A of the Payment of Gratuity Act will be applicable in case of the writ-petitioner or as to how the respondents-TRTC are relying upon Section 4 -A of the said act. To rely upon Section 4 -A of the Payment of Gratuity Act, TRTC being an establishment of the State Government has to bring all its employees under the coverage of insurance policy. Each and every employees of this establishment is to be insured and liability absolutely lies upon the Corporation to bring its employees under the umbrella of insurance policy.

5. In the instant case, the respondents-corporation have not brought their employees under the umbrella of the insurance policy. They did not buy any policy from the Life Insurance Corporation of India as contemplated under Section 4 -A of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. As such, according to us, Section 4 -A has no application in deciding the instant writ petition as well as the appeal before us. It is an admitted position that none of the employees have been brought under the Insurance coverage by the corporation. Hence, we repel the submissions of learned GA on this point.

6. Next, we have to decide whether the TRTC, being an establishment of the State Government is liable to pay gratuity considering the upper ceiling limit as enhanced by the Central Government vide notification dated 29.03.2018.

7. This issue has already been settled by this Court in a series of decisions. Learned Single Judge while deciding a writ petition involving similar question of law relied upon the judgment of Bhupati Debnath v. The State of Tripura and Ors [WP(C) No. 1054/2019, decided on 13th February, 2020] and had observed thus:

'[5] Both these issues came up for consideration in two recent judgments passed by this Court. In case of Sri Bhupati Debnath v. The State of Tripura and Others: W.P. (c) No. 1054/2019 (decided on 13th February, 2020) under somewhat similar circumstances it was held and observed as under:

'10. It can thus be seen that insofar as the payment of gratuity, its computation and the ceiling up to which such amount can be paid as referred to in Section 4 of the said Act, the term 'appropriate Government' has no bearing. This distinction is also apparent from the statement of objects and reasons which provides that for the purpose of uniformity, the Central Act was envisaged. At the same time, appropriate Government is for the purpose of administering the Act. The ceiling limi