S/L.02.

May 22, 2025.

.

KAUSHIK WPA No. 18633 of 2024 Smt. Manju Chowdhury @ Manju Devi Vs.

The State of West Bengal and Others Mr. Bikash Shaw Mr. Sk. Saad Islam … for the petitioner.

Mr. Balai Chandra Paul Ms. Sumouli Dey …for the respondent no. 4.

Mr. Soumitra Bandyopadhyay Mr. Priyabrata Batabyal … for the State.

The grievance of the petitioner is directed against two separate orders dated 23^rd July, 2021 passed by the Controlling Authoriuty and 28^th July, 2023 passed by the Appellate Authority arising out of Gratuity Case No. 18/G/2015. Briefly, the petitioner is the wife of Late Rajesh Chowdhury, who was an employee of the Dalhousie Jute Company Limited, Baidyabati, Hooghly.

It is alleged that the petitioner’s husband was appointed by the respondent company on 1^st July, 1998 and had offered its services for a period of fifteen years. The petitioner’s husband died on 17^th Novembe, 2013 leaving behind his wife. On 27^th March, 2015, the petitioner, as legal representative of the deceased, made an application under prescribed Form No. J of the Payment of Gratuity Rules, 1973 claiming gratuity viz. a viz. her deceased husband. Upon failure of the private respondent to make payment towards the gratuity dues , the petitioner made an application before the respondent no. 2 on 27^th April, 2015 for necessary directions under Form No. N of the Act of 1972.

In this background, the respondent authorities initiated Gratuity Case No. 18/G/2015.

By an order dated 30^th May, 2019, the respondent no. 2 dismissed the application of the petitioner, inter alia, finding that the petitioner’s husband was ineligible for any gratuity.

Being aggrieved by the order dated 30^th May, 2019, the petitioner filed an appeal before the respondent no. 3 i.e. the Appellate Authority which was numbered as Appeal No. 58/GA/2019.

By an order dated 23^rd July, 2021 (the impugned order), the respondent no. 3 set aside the order dated 30^th May, 2019 and directed the respondent no. 2 to allow payment of proportional gratuity for a period of year to the petitioner upon verification of the deceased’s eligibility with liberty to modify the order dated 30^th May, 2019.

In this background, the petitioner made an application for review challenging the order dated

23^rd July, 2021. The said application for review was dismissed by an order dated 28^th July, 2023, inter alia, rejecting such application on the ground that the same was not maintainable.

Being aggrieved by the above order, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

It is contended that the Appellate Authority while passing an impugned order had erred in recording the fact that the petitioner has failed to render continuous service in the respondent no. 4 in terms of the Act. The respondent authority has also erred in not considering the proviso in section 4 of the Act of 1972 whereby, an employee upon being disabled or upon the death of the same, the condition of rendering continus service of five years for obtaining gratuity payments are not necessary. In such circumstances, the petitioner assails the finding of their being no continuous service as well as the interpretation to the proviso in section 4 of the Act of 1972.

On behalf of the private respondents, it is contended that the petitioner’s husband was a ‘badli’ worker and continued in such status until his death. It is further contended that in the long span of 15 years the petitioner’s husband never worked for a continuous span of 240 days, which is a pre-condition to any payment under the Act.

In such circumstances, the petitioner has failed to bring on record or demonstrate that the petitioner’s deceased husband had continuously worked for 240 days in any of the years durintg his terms of service. It is well-settled that the onus to show, that the petitioner has satisfied the mandate of 240 days in order to be entitled to gratuity is solely that of the petitioner. The Register of Leave maintained by the respondent no., 4 clearly suggests that the petitioner’s husban