IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE PRESENT:

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE ARINDAM MUKHEREJEE.

WPA 29089 of 2023 SAIL Growth Works vs.

Sri Durga Mahato & Ors.

For the petitioner ::Mr. Nirmalendu Ganguly, Mr. Anshunath Chakraborty .....Advocates Mr. Ajit Kumar Mishra, For Respondent no. 2 & 3 Mr. Abhishek Dey, Mr. Kushagra Maskara ......Advocates Heard on 21.05.2025 Judgment on : 2nd July, 2025.

Arindam Mukherjee, J.:

The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) as also the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) Asansol, West Bengal dated 23rd September, 2023. By the order impugned, the Appellate Authority has allowed the appeal by setting aside the order of the Controlling Authority under the said Act dated 6th December, 2021 and has further held that the appellant/workman is entitled to gratuity from the writ petitioner.

Facts of the Case:

1. Durga Mahato, the respondent no. 1 as the employee filed an application under Rule 10(1) of the Payment of Gratuity (Central) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules) on 26th November, 2014 impleading the General Manager SAIL Growth Works, Kulti as the principal respondent. SAIL Growth Works is the petitioner in the instant writ petition and has been alleged to be the employer of the respondent no. 1. The Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority are respectively, the respondent no. 2 and 3 in the writ petition.

The employee (Respondent no. 1) in his application has alleged the following :

(i) He was engaged in IISCO and its Kulti Works (hereinafter for the sake of convenience referred to as the erstwhile establishment) continuously from 15th March, 1980 through varities contractors, the lest of which was IISCO Employees’ Primary Co-operative Stores Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the said Stores Ltd.) till the separation of his services in 2003. The separation of service occurred due to closing down of the erstwhile establishment in 2003.

(ii) The last drawn wages is Rs.3519.32 on the basis whereof for 33 years of continuous service the employee has claimed a sum of Rs.

46,699/- from the writ petitioner being the principal employer.

(iii) Similarly placed employees like the respondent no. 1 have been paid the gratuity pursuant to the orders of the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority under the said Act.

(iv) The employee is entitled to claim gratuity in view of the provisions of the Article 14 of the Constitution of India since gratuity has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to be not a bounty.

(v) There is no deliberate laches on the part of the respondent no. 1 (employer) and there is also no legal embargo in claiming the same from the writ petitioner.

The writ petitioner has objected to the claim made by the respondent no. 1 by filing an objection wherein the main points taken are as follows:

(i) There is no employer-employee relationship between the writ petitioner and the respondent no. 1 (employee)

(ii) The concerned Contractor/Contractors are necessary and proper parties to the proceedings but have not been impleaded as such.

(iii) The application has been filed after expiry of 12 years when the employee has accepted that the separation of his services took place in 2003 and as such the claim is barred by limitation. Moreover, records after expiry of 12 years are not expected to be available or can be traced out. Furthermore, IISCO Kulti works was taken over by the writ petitioner pursuant to the decision taken by the Central Government in the year 2006-2007 and as such it is impossible to track the records prior to 2003 in 2014.

(iv) Under an agreement the employee (respondent no. 1) has been paid ex gratia in lieu of his legal dues and as such should refund such ex gratia amount before claiming gratuity.

(v) The claim of the employee is barred by the principles of waiver, acquiesce and estoppels and laches.

The Con