Calcutta High Court: In a review application challenging a series of legal actions related to the payment of gratuity, a division bench comprising of Rajarshi Bharadwaj and Shampa Dutt (Paul),* JJ., held that an employer can file an appeal by producing a certificate from the Controlling Authority stating that the required amount has been deposited under Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and that this certificate is sufficient to enable the employer to file an appeal without transferring the deposited amount to the appellate authority.
Factual Matrix
In the instant matter, the applicant-employee preferred a review application challenging a series of legal actions related to the payment of gratuity. In case in hand, the employer/respondent 4, filed a petition before the Single Bench of this court, seeking a direction for the respondent 3, Life Insurance Corporation (LIC), to deposit an amount of Rs.3,63,462/- in favor of the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Kolkata, as the applicant was entitled to this gratuity amount. The Single Judge vide order dated 22-12-2020, directed LIC to pay the aforementioned amount to the applicant by way of cheque drawn in the name of the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central).
The applicant then filed an appeal before a Division Bench of this Court, challenging the Single Judge’s order. Vide order dated ‘7-07-2022, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal, stating that the Single Judge’s order was not erroneous, and no prejudice was caused to the applicant.
Aggrieved by the impugned order, the applicant preferred a review application contending that the Division Bench did not consider the potential prejudice to the employee if the gratuity amount was given to the employer. This is because the fund is maintained with LIC under a special scheme for the welfare of employees of employer, and it should not be diverted for the employer’s purposes.
Moot Point
Should the Division Bench have considered the potential prejudice to the employee if the claim amount is given to the employer, as the fund is intended for the welfare of the employee?
Arguments
The respondent 4/employer contended that the review application is defective and should be dismissed. It was argued that the applicant has not established any of the grounds for a review as per Order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, and the memorandum of review resembles an appeal.
It was asserted that the gratuity fund with LIC represents the employer’s money and is used to pay gratuity to employees when legally entitled. It was argued that as a prerequisite for filing an appeal, the employer must deposit the entire awarded amount, which has already been done with LIC.
Court’s Assessment
The Court observed that the applicant’s grievance is that the gratuity amount deposited by LIC is intended for the welfare of the employees and should not be used by the employer for an appeal.
The Court observed that Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 allows the employer to produce a certificate of pre-deposition from the controlling authority, which in this case is the Assistant Labour Commissioner. The Court further observed that the deposited amount by the LIC with the Assistant Labour Commissioner does not need to be handed over to the employer.
The Court opined that this certificate is sufficient to enable the employer to file an appeal without transferring the deposited amount to the appellate authority. The Court confirmed that the required certificate has been issued to the employer, allowing them to file the statutory appeal.
Court’s Decision
The Court disposed of the review application. The Court held that the amount deposited by LIC with the controlling authority is not required to be handed over to the employer, as the certificate of pre-deposition enables them to file the statutory appeal in accordance with Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
All connected applications are also disposed of.
[Asis Chaudhuri v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 3330, order dated 05-10-2023]
*Judgment by Shampa Dutt (Paul)
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Avijit Ghoshal, Counsel for the Applicant
Mr. D. K. Kundu, Mr. A. Basu, Counsel for the Respondent 3
Mr. Victor Chatterjee, Mr. Hare Krishna Haldar, Mr. Koushik Bhattacharyya, Counsel for the Respondent 4
