AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.:
The writ application has been preferred by the petitioner Bank challenging an order dated 30.12.2025 passed by the Learned Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Kolkata, and the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, in Case No. 40(09)/2024-Ε.3, whereby the petitioner Bank has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.47,335/- together with interest to the private respondent.
The principal grievance of the petitioner Bank is that the impugned order proceeds on an erroneous assumption that the petitioner Bank was liable to pay gratuity to the private respondent merely because the respondent had worked at/on the Bank premises.
The admitted factual position, however, is that the private respondent was never appointed by the petitioner Bank. His engagement was through independent contractors engaged by the Bank for outsourced/casual services.
The private respondent worked under different contractors during different periods. His wages and other service-related payments were made by the concerned contractors and not by the petitioner Bank.
There was no appointment letter issued by the petitioner Bank in favour of the private respondent, nor was there any employer-employee relationship between the Bank and the private respondent.
The contractual arrangements between the petitioner Bank and the concerned contractors also specifically contemplated that statutory liabilities in respect of the personnel engaged by the contractors, including gratuity liability, would be borne by the contractors.
It is further significant that one of the contractors had already paid part of the gratuity amount claimed by the private respondent.
Despite the aforesaid undisputed factual position, the Learned Controlling Authority proceeded to fasten the entire liability upon the petitioner Bank by treating it as the “principal employer”.
The impugned order is therefore legally unsustainable and liable to be quashed and set aside.
The petitioners’ further case is that the fact that the Bank engaged contractors for providing outsourced services does not, by itself, convert the employees of such contractors into employees of the Bank.
The relationship between the Bank and the contractors was contractual and commercial. The personnel deployed by the contractors remained employees/personnel of the respective contractors.
The mere fact that the services were rendered at a branch or establishment of the Bank cannot, by itself, result in the creation of a direct employer-employee relationship.
The Learned Authority has thus considered two distinct concepts:-
(a). The Bank's status as the principal employer for purposes contemplated by the contract labour regime; and
(b). The Bank being the employer of the individual claimant for purposes of the Payment of Gratuity Act.
The petitioner states that these concepts cannot be treated as interchangeable. Unless the statutory requirements for fastening gratuity liability upon the Bank are established, no direction for payment could have been issued against the petitioner Bank.
The respondents on filing written notes have stated that the impugned order is an appealable order and the petitioners without preferring an appeal have approached the High Court in its writ jurisdiction.
It is thus stated that there is a delay beyond the statutory period of limitation and the petitioners are not entitled to any relief against the order of the Controlling Authority which has been challenged.
It is thus submitted that on the said ground the writ application is not maintainable as the petitioners’ only intention is to frustrate the claim of the employee/respondent under a beneficial legislation.
In the present case, the “employer” herein is the “principal employer” as the service herein is directly provided to the “principal employer” (Bank) who exclusively avails of such service. The contractor herein is only the provider and is bound by the terms and conditions imposed by the “principal employer”, i.e., petitioner/Bank herein and the petitioner is thus liable under the payment of gratuity act, as held by the authority under the act.
Admittedly, the petitioners have not preferred an appeal which requires a mandatory deposit to be made at the time of filing an appeal. The writ application has been filed on 18.06.2026 challenging an order dated 30.12.2025.
Vide the said writ application, the petitioners’ intention is two folds. One to avoid the period of limitation and second to avoid making the pre-deposit. Prima facie, the respondent/employee is employed for the work of the bank as a casual worker, through one contractor after another. All along the employee was providing service to the petitioner/bank through various contractors. Admittedly, the petitioner is the principal employer and thus responsible/liable for the dues of the workers even those who have been appointed through contractors with liberty to realize the same from the contractors, if the amount as due to the workers, which includes statutory dues has already been paid to the contractors, who in turn have defaulted.
In the said facts and circumstances this Court finds no reason to interfere with the order impugned dated 30.12.2025 passed by the Learned Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Kolkata, and the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, in Case No. 40(09)/2024-Ε.3.
The writ application is dismissed.
Applications, if any, connected thereto stand disposed of consequently.
Photostat certified copy of this Judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis upon compliance of all formalities.