AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.—Kanailal Mukherjee who filed this WP under Article 226 dated October 20, 2009 is no more. His wife and daughter have been substituted. Kanai was working in Calcutta Dock Labour Board. On reaching the age of superannuation he retired from service on August 1, 2006. In para 6 he stated that he was not paid Rs. 4,47,000 retirement benefits (with Rs. 40,000 interest). He has prayed for a mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the benefits.
By an order dated November 16, 2009 the WP was admitted. The respondents were directed to file opposition within two weeks. The last two orders are dated March 1, 2012 and March 5, 2012.
They are quoted below:
01.03.2012: It is submitted that an SLP has been filed. Hence hearing is adjourned. To next monthly list for hearing (maintaining position). Certified xerox.
05.03.2012: None appears for the respondents. In view of the last order hearing adjourned. To next monthly list for hearing (maintaining position). Certified xerox.
None appears for the respondents. The respondents, however, have filed an opposition dated February 19, 2010.
In their opposition the respondents have not said anything about Kanai''s case stated in para 6 of the WP. Hence the case stated by Kanai in para 6, having remained uncontroversial, is to be deemed to be admitted by the respondents.
In para 7 of their opposition the respondents have stated that the Dock Labour Board is not in a position to release the petitioner''s dues, unless financial assistance is received from the Government of India that is considering the proposed financial assistance.
Mr. Roy appearing for the substituted petitioners has submitted as follows. Dealing with an identical situation this Court gave a decision dated December 6, 2004 in a WP No. 18713(W) of 2004 holding that financial crisis could not be a ground to withhold payment of retirement benefits and directing the Dock Labour Board and its officials to pay the benefits with 8% interest and Rs. 5000 costs.
He has said that an appeal against that order dated December 6, 2004 was dismissed by the Division Bench, and that an SLP against the order of the Division Bench was dismissed by the Supreme Court.
In view of the decision of this Court dated December 6, 2004 in WP No. 18713(W) of 2004 and the other orders noted hereinbefore, I hold that the respondents cannot withhold payment of Kanai''s retirement benefits citing their financial crisis. This Court has held that financial crisis cannot not entitle the respondents to withhold payment of retirement benefits of their employees.
In my opinion, the respondents are liable to pay the substituted petitioners the benefits claimed in para 6 of the WP with interest @ 8% per annum and Rs. 5000 costs. For these reasons, I allow the WP and order as follows. The respondents shall pay the substituted petitioners the amounts in para 6 (except the interest amount). Interest @ 8% per annum shall be paid from the date the respective amounts became payable till the date of actual payment. They shall pay Rs. 5000 costs. Compliance within three weeks from the date this order is served. Certified xerox.