IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction APPELLATE SIDE Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)

WPA 6288 of 2025 Mahadeo Jute and Industries Limited Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhra Mukherjee, Mr. Sauradeep Dutta.

For the State : Mr. Debapriya Chatterjee, (through virtual mode) Mr. Ushanath Banerjee.

Hearing concluded on : 14.07.2025 Judgment on : 23.07.2025 Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.:

1. The writ application has been preferred challenging the order dated

01.02.2024 passed by the Controlling Authority and the order dated

16.12.2024 passed by the Appellate Authority.

2. The petitioner/company’s case is that the respondent no. 4 was employed in the jute mill as a Budli in the year 02.04.1980 and was made Special Budli in the year 2000. He superannuated on 16.04.2014. During the period of his such Budli employment he did not work continuously for 240 days, consecutively for 5 years till his retirement on 16.04.2014. He was an insured person under the provision of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948. His contribution was deposited according to the wages earned in each month during the period of his employment.

3. It is the petitioner’s case that after the respondent no. 4 superannuated on 16.04.2014, the petitioner/company issued several notices which were put up on its notice board in the case of Budli employees as per practice of the company intimating therein to the respondent no. 4 to come and collect his gratuity dues which was ready for disbursement. The petitioner also by its letter dated 08.08.2017 requested the respondent no. 4 to come and collect his gratuity dues, but the respondent no. 4 failed to report to the office of the company to receive his gratuity dues which is due and payable as per records of the company.

4. The respondent no. 4 without approaching the company filed an application for gratuity in Form ‘N’ dated 01.03.2017 before the learned Controlling Authority, Howrah, under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 for determination of alleged residue amount of gratuity and recovery of the same.

5. The Controlling Authority while deciding gratuity case no.

18/17/DLC/HOW dated 01.02.2024 on the following findings:-

“The applicant deposed that he joined to the O.P.

company on 01.03.1976 and superannuated on 16.06.2014. He served continuously for 38 years without any break in service. He also deposed that his last drawn wage was Rs.10,788.23 per month. To establish his claim during examination, he submitted the following documents, which are verified with originals and marked as Exhibit-1-Copy of ESI card.

Exhibit-2-Copy of Notice of retirement issued by O.P. dated

01.06.2014.

Exhibit-3-Copy of starting monthly wages of unskilled workers as per agreement dated 02.12.95.

The Opposite Party cross examined the applicant on 09.01.2020. The O.P. Company recorded their Evidence-in-chief on affidavit on 02.03.2022 with one Exhibit, i.e. copy of Register of Leave with wages for the period from 1986 to 2014 of Md. Israil. The O.P. company submitted that the applicant concerned joined to the O.P. company on 01.03.1976 as „Budli‟ and did not work continuously for 240 days in 5 years till his retirement on 16.06.2014. But the O.P. company failed to produce any attendance sheet of the applicant in support of their claim. Thus the O.P. company failed to produce any Exhibit to substantiate their Evidence-in-chief. The O.P. was being cross-examined by applicant on 04.04.2022, wherein O.P. admitted that they do not have any documentary evidence to proof that the applicant had not rendered continuous service from the year1976 to 2014.

So, it is held that applicant cannot be a victim of circumstances just because of sheer negligence on the part of the O.P. company as such in no circumstances the O.P. company can escape its statutory liability towards payment of gratuity to the concerned applicant.

……………………………..

On perusal of oral and written affirmation made by parties and documentary evidences a