IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Lanusungkum Jamir

And

The Hon’ble Justice Rai Chattopadhyay

MAT 614 of 2025

Calcutta Jute Manufacturing Company

Vs.

Dwarika Yadav and Ors.

For the appellant : Mr. Soumya Majumder, ld. Sr. Adv.

: Mr. S.K. Singh : Mr. R.K. Dubey

For the respondent No. 1 : Mr. R. Guha Thakurta

: Ms. S. Sengupta

Heard on : 28/10/2025 Judgment on : 04/12/2025

Rai Chattopadhyay, J. :-

1. A judgment of the Hon‟ble Single Judge dated March 28, 2025 in

WPA 28594 of 2022 is under challenge in the instant appeal. The subject matter of the lis concerns with the period of continuous service of the respondent No. 1/the workman, with the appellant/company and the amount of gratuity actually payable to him. The judgment of the Hon‟ble Single Bench as above is that of reversal of the order of the Appellate Authority under the Payment

Of Gratuity Act, 1972 and affirming the order of the Controlling Authority in this regard.

2. The instant appeal deals with the issues inter alia that, whether the Writ Court is justified to put the appellant to a worse off position even though the order which the appellant has challenged before the Writ Court was accepted by the beneficiary thereof (the respondent/workman in this case), by not preferring an appeal against the same;

Whether finding of the Writ Court of the total span of „continuous service‟ of the respondent/workman is just, legal and proper;

Whether the Writ Court has duly and lawfully imposed the adverse inference on the appellant as regards proof of „continuous service‟ of the respondent/workman in spite of the appellant having produced „some evidence‟ in the form of leave records and the respondent having evidently not been able to prove his claim of continuous service with any evidence.

Whether the Appellate Authority and the Hon‟ble Single Bench is justified and proper to come to the finding about the last drawn per day wages of the respondent/workman, for the purpose of calculation of the gratuity amount.

3. Before coming into the judgment under challenge in this appeal, the relevant factual background of the case is required to be narrated, which is as follows:-

4. The respondent No. 1/workman joined the appellant company on March 31, 1980 as a daily rated Badli workman. His service was regularized with effect from December 10, 1995. He has been superannuated from the appellant company with effect from July

23, 2013.

5. According to the respondent No. 1/workman, immediately after his superannuation, he stood eligible and entitled for payment of gratuity by the appellant. However, the appellant/company has failed to duly perform its statutory duty and obligation by disbursing the gratuity amount in favour of the respondent/workman. Such alleged inaction of the appellant/company prompted the respondent/workman to file his application dated July 21, 2014 before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 in statutory form “N”. The Controlling Authority by dint of his order dated October 27, 2016 has disposed of the respondent/workman‟s prayer as above with the direction that for rendering 10 years of continuous service with the last drawn wages to the tune of Rs. 363.92/- per day, the respondent is entitled to an amount of gratuity of Rs. 5,45,88/-

along with admissible interests on the principal amount, for the period from July 24, 2013 that is the subsequent day of the date of his superannuation, till the date of actual payment. The Controlling Authority has further held that date of joining of the respondent/workman that is, March 31, 1980 is undisputed. Also that, the workman has failed to adduce adequate evidence to prove his performance for 240 days and more, in the years of service till he was made regular.

6. The order of the Controlling Authority dated October 27, 2016 though stood acceptable for the appellant/company, however, was challenged by the respondent/workman before the statutory Appellate Autho