Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 814 (CAL)

Hastings Jute Mill v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2008-08-11

Tapas Kumar Giri

body2008
JUDGMENT: 1. THIS application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order dated 26. 05. 2004 passed by the Controlling Authority Sreerampore, hooghly in case No. G-15/99 and order dated 04. 06. 2004 and 21. 06. 2004 passed by the Certificate Officer, Sreerampore, Hooghly vide Memo No. 26 Cert dated 08. 06. 2004 in case No. 04 (M) of 02. 03 and by which the Certificate Officer passed the order on the basis of the order of the Controlling Authority, Sreerampore. 2. THE other cases C. R. Nos. 1825 of 2004, 1826 of 2004, 1827 of 2004, 1828 of 2004 and 1829 of 2004 arise on the basis of the same orders of the Controlling authority as well as the certificate officer. As such a common judgment and order is being passed for the interest of justice. The fact of the present application is that the O. P. (Ram Khelawan Tanti) in respect of CR-1824/2004 filed an application under Sub Rule (1) of Rule 10 of the west Bengal Payment of Gratuity Rules 1973 before the Assistant Labour 3. COMMISSIONER and Controlling Authority under the payment of Gratuity Act 1972 for payment a sum of Rs. 38164. 50 for his gratuity due. 4. THE petitioner company filed the written statement before the Controlling authority and it was alleged that the O. P. was the badli worker and he did not complete 240 days and he was not entitled to get the gratuity. The Controlling Authority without giving an opportunity to the petition directed to pay a sum of Rs. 38164. 50 to Sri Ram Khelawan Tanti and issued Form" r". 5. THE petitioner company after receiving the said "r" Form filed an application for review. Without disposing the said application the certificate officer issued the certificate against the petitioner company. The certificate officer passed the order dated 10. 01. 2003 and 27. 01. 2003 without hearing the objection. 6. THE petitioner company preferred an appeal before the Collector, Chinsura, hooghly with stay application. The A. D. M (C) Hooghly after hearing sent back on remand to the certificate officer to try those cases. The certificate officer directed the controlling Authority for rehearing the matter as the review petition was filed within a stipulated period. No notice was served by the Controlling Authority for hearing the review application. The A. D. M (C) Hooghly after hearing sent back on remand to the certificate officer to try those cases. The certificate officer directed the controlling Authority for rehearing the matter as the review petition was filed within a stipulated period. No notice was served by the Controlling Authority for hearing the review application. The petitioner company received the Memo No. 234 (2)/cert dated 03. 01. 2003 for appearance before him on 12. 11. 2003. The petitioner company stated the entire fact before the certificate officer as stated in para-26 of the application. But the certificate officer passed the order dated 14. 11. 2003 to clear the dues. Hence this application arises. 7. HEARD Learned Advocate for the respective parties. It appears from the record (Page 35 to 36) Annexure-P-1 that the review application was filed by the petitioner company on 28. 3. 2001 against the ex party decision dated 25. 01. 2001 before the controlling Authority. The said Review application was filed within 30 (thirty) days from the date of the order as per provision of Sub Rule 5 of Rule 11 of the West bengal Payment of Gratuity Rules 1973. However, the Controlling Authority rejected the review application vide order dated 26. 05. 2001 Annexure " P-11 (Page56 of the record) as it was not filed within the statutory period. The said observation of the Controlling Authority is baseless. The said review application dated 28. 03. 2001 is not disposed of by the Controlling Authority and it is still pending before the Controlling Authority. 8. HAVING regard to the present fact the review application is pending for disposal before the Controlling Authority. This is disposed of with the observation that the certificate debtor petitioner shall be at liberty to apply before the Controlling authority for stay of operation of the order against which the review application is pending. With this observation the present application is disposed of. It is further directed that the Controlling Authority will dispose of the said review application within a period of two months from the date of communication of the order. The c. O. Nos. 1824 of 2004, 1825 of 2004, 1826 of 2004, 1827 of 2004, 1828 of 2004 and 1829 of 2004 are disposed of accordingly. There is no order as to costs.