SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Tri) 218

HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA
Arindam Lodh, J.
Debasish Sengupta - Appellant
Versus
State of Tripura & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) 558 of 2021
Decided On : 10-11-2022

Advocates appeared:
Mr.S. Datta, Advocate., for the Petitioner; Mrs. S. Deb, Mr. P. Gautam, Advocates., for the Respondent

The revised gratuity ceiling of Rs.20,00,000 under the Payment of Gratuity Act applies to all establishments, regardless of whether controlled by State or Central Government.

Headnote:(A) Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - Payment of gratuity on retirement - Amendment of ceiling limit to Rs.20.00 lakhs effective from 29.03.2018 - Petitioner retired and claimed gratuity based on revised ceiling - Respondents sanctioned gratuity under old ceiling - Court ruled that revised ceiling applies to all establishments, directing payment of balance amount with interest. (Paras 3, 11, 12)

(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Court asked to call for records and issue rule on non-payment of gratuity - Previous judgment established grounds for granting similar relief, leading to direct resolution of current writ petition. (Paras 4, 6)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was appointed on 02.09.1991 and retired on 31.01.2021, claiming gratuity of Rs.11,49,404 based on the revised ceiling limit. The respondents initially granted gratuity only up to Rs.10,00,000 based on the old ceiling.

Findings of Court:
The revised limit of Rs.20,00,000 is applicable regardless of the appropriate government, and respondents ordered to make payment accordingly. Interest on the delayed payment was also mandated.

Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to gratuity under the revised ceiling limit and the applicability of the Payment of Gratuity Act amendments to all establishments.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the revised ceiling limit for gratuity applies universally to all employees and cannot be contingent on the state’s adoption of the amendments; thus, the petitioner's entitlement to the revised amount must be honored.

Result: Writ petition allowed; respondents directed to pay the balance gratuity sum along with interest.

Table of Content
1. details of petitioner's service and gratuity claim (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. citing precedent for gratuity claims (Para 4)
3. analysis of the payment of gratuity act, 1972 (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. S. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mrs. S. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the State-respondents and Mr. P. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 2 to 5.

2. By way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

'In the premises whereof it is humbly prayed that Your Lordship would graciously pleased to-

(i) Admit the petitioner;

(ii) Call for the records;

(iii) Issue Rule calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why the petitioner shall not be allowed/released the arrears of Gratuity amount as entitled to under the Payment of Gratuity Act,1972 in terms of maximum ceiling to Rs.20.00 lakhs as came into force w.e.f. 29.03.2018 along with compound rate of interest @ 9% per annum in favour of the petitioner. '

3. Briefly stated, the petitioner was appointed in the post of Field Supervisor on 02.09.1991 by the Tripura Scheduled Tribe/Scheduled Caste (ST/SC) Co-operative Development Corporation Ltd., the respondent nos. 2 to 5 respectively. After attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner retired from service w.e.f. 31.01.2021. It is the contention of the petitioner that after the retirement as per ceiling limit of Rs.20,00,000/- under the Payment of GratuityAct,1972 amended on 29.03.2018, the petitioner is entitled to Rs.11,49,404/- as full and final payment of gratuity. But, the respondent nos. 2 to 5 vide Memo dated 30.01.2021 [Annexure-1 to the writ petition] sanctioned and released the gratuity amount on computation of pre-revised ceiling limit i.e. subject to maximum Rs.10,00,000/-. The petitioner has prayed for payment of balance amount which he is entitled to, along with 9% interest, till the date of actual payment. It is further contended that the Govt. of India by Notification, dated, 29.03.2018 notified that the amount of gratuity payable to an employee under the Act shall not exceed Rs.20,00,000/-. Accordingly, the petitioner has urged that he is also entitled to gratuity at the enhanced rate i.e. Rs.20,00,000/- as per Payment of Gratuity (Amendment Act), 2018.

4. At the very outset, Mr. S. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that this writ petition is well covered by the judgment of learned Single Judge of this court dated 13.02.2020 in the case of Sri Bhupati Debnath v. The State of Tripura & two others. in WP(C) No.1054 of 2019. Respondents did not seriously oppose this proposition. The relevant portion of the said judgment of the learned Single Judge may be reproduced here-in-below:

'5. The statement of objects and reasons for enactment of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (the Act, for short) reads as under:

'STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS:

There is at present no Central Act to regulate the payment of gratuity to industrial workers, except the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. 1995. The Government of Kerala enacted legislation last year for payment of gratuity to workers employed in factories, plantations, shops and establishments. The West Bengal Governor Promulgated an Ordinance on the 3rd June, 1971 prescribing a similar scheme of gratuity. This Ordinance has since been replaced by the West Bengal Employees' Payment of Compulsory Gratuity Act, 1971, enacted by the President on 28th August, 1971. Gratuity is also being paid by some employers to their workers under Awards and Agreements.

Since the enactment of the Kerala and the West Bengal Acts, some other State Governments have also voiced their intention of enacting similar measures in their respective States. It has become necessary, therefore, to have a Central law on the subject so as to ensure a uniform pattern of payment of gratuity to the employees t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top