Manilal Malakar And Ors. vs State Of Tripura And Ors.

Heard Mr. P. Maishan and Mr. K. Nath learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. J Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the respondents no. 1 and 4 whereas Mr. P. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents no. 2 and 3.

All these petitions being WP(C) 251 of 2017 [Sri Hemendra Chakraborty vs. The State of Tripura and others], WP(C) 251 of 2017 [Sri Subal Rudra Paul vs. The State of Tripura and others], WP(C) 252 of 2017 [Sri Subhash Debroy vs. The State of Tripura and others] and WP(C) 255 of 2017 [Sri Manilal Malakar vs. The State of Tripura and others] are consolidated for disposal by a common judgment as there is consensus at the Bar that these writ petitions are wholly covered by a previous decision of this court in Subir Kumar Lodh vs. The State of Tripura and others [judgment and order dated 29.11.2016 delivered in WP(C) 833 of 2016 etc.] .

The controversy in these writ petitions falls within a very short compass. According to the petitioners, while making the payment of their gratuity, the respondents No. 2 and 3 did not consider the amendment that has been carried out in Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. By way of that amendment, the maximum gratuity that can be paid to an employee on his retirement has been enhanced to Rs. 10 lakhs in lieu of Rs. 3.5 lakhs. In Subir Kumar Lodh (supra), it was observed by this court as under:

"06. There is no dispute that the respondent No.2 is the establishment which has not been exempted from payment of the gratuity by the appropriate government in exercise of power under Section 5 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and they have been paying gratuity to his employees having fallen due. It is also not disputed by the respondents that in view of the amendment that has been carried out in Section 4(3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, they are under obligation to pay and gratuity to calculate the same having the maximum limit of Rs.10,000,00/-. It has been further admitted by them that the gratuity that has been paid to the petitioners has been so paid in view of the preamended provision of Section 4(3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act with interest.

Section 7(3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act categorically mandates the employer to pay the amount of gratuity within 30(thirty) days from the date when it would become payable to the person to whom the gratuity is paid. If the said amount is not paid in terms of Section 7(3A) within the specified period, the employer shall pay from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, not exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment on long term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify. However, no interest may be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground. But here, the delayed payment cannot be attributed to the petitioners. Initially the respondent No.1 by filing the reply has taken the stand that it is the sole obligation of the respondents No.2 and 3 to pay the gratuity to its employees from its own resource and for that no permission is required from the respondent No.1. But subsequently the said statement has been withdrawn in view of the provisions available in the Tripura Khadi and Village Industries Act which has categorically provided that without taking prior approval from the Government, the Khadi and Village Industries Board shall not take any financial decision beyond a certain limit".

This court finds that these batch of writ petitions are wholly covered by the said decision of this court in Subir Kumar Lodh (supra) and as such the respondents are directed to re-calculate the gratuity of the petitioners having the maximum of Rs. 10 lakh in view of the amended provision of Section 4(3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, and after adjusting the amount that has already been paid, the remainder of the gratuity shall be paid to the petitioner from the date on which it fell due to the date when the due would be paid with interest @8% per annum. The payment shall be made within a period of 60 (sixty) days from the date on which a copy of this order shall be made available to the respondent No.3 by the petitioners.

In the result, the writ petitions are allowed to the extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.