Tripura Jute Mills Limited And Anr vs Vs

Arindam Lodh, J

Heard Mr. D. Bhattacharya, learned senior counsel as well as Mr. P. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. R. Purkayastha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

In course of hearing, it is revealed that the respondent has manipulated the Clause 9.5 of “Tripura Jute Mills Ltd. Standing Rules & Regulation and Conditions of Service of the Managerial Staff and Assistants/Officers/Supervisors” where it is stated thus:

“9.5. GRATUITY: Each staff on completion of minimum five years of service be entitled to gratuity on resignation, retirement, termination or dismissal. The gratuity shall be calculated and paid at the rate of 15 days last drawn salary (exclusive of H.R.A. and C.A. if he was paid any) for each completed year of service for a maximum period of 40 years or completed service irrespective gratuity amount limit. For the purpose of calculating the period of completed, any period of service below six months shall not be taken into account but any such period exceeding six months shall be taken as a completed year of service.”

But in reality, in the original Regulation, this Clause 9.5 reads as under:

“9.5. GRATUITY: Each staff on completion of minimum five years of service be entitled to gratuity on resignation, retirement, termination or dismissal. The gratuity shall be calculated and paid at the rate of 15 days last drawn salary(exclusive of H.R.A. and C.A., if he was paid any) for each completed year of service for a maximum period of 20 years or completed service. For the purpose of calculating the period of completed service, any period of service below six months shall not be taken into account but any such period exceeding six months shall be taken as a completed as a completed year of service.”

From the above, it is aptly clear that the respondent has committed fraud in mentioning the gratuity clause. As such, I direct the review petitioner, Tripura Jute Mills Limited to recalculate the entitlement of the respondent in terms of original Clause 9.5 and also highlight the other manipulations as argued by Mr. Gautam, learned counsel for the review petitioner.

I also direct Sri Bhanu Lodh, the respondent to remain present before this Court at 10:30 a.m. on 18.08.2023.

List the matter on 18.08.2023.