'Hypocrite' 'Illegal': Calcutta HC Directs State Gov To Initiate Proceedings Against Recovery Officer For Rejecting Claim Of Jute Mill Worker Under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972

The Calcutta High Court recently came down heavily on the Certificate Officer, an officer in the District Magistrate's Office, Howrah for denying the claim for superannuation of a retired Jute Mill worker under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The Court further set aside the order of the Certificate Officer by terming it as 'illegal and bad in the eye of law'. Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay observed that the Certificate Officer (CO) had deliberately deprived the jute mill worker's lawful claim for more than 15 years in order to favour the owners of the Jute Mill. "While rejecting the requisition he himself did not follow the principles of natural justice and without giving any party any opportunity of hearing rejected the requisition. Such act of the said CO is ex facie hypocrite and illegal and bad in the eye of law", the Court opined. Accordingly, the Court directed the Principal Secretary or the Secretary Labour Department, Government of West Bengal to initiate proceedings against the Certificate Officer under Section 9 (1) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 within a period of 2 weeks. "The vigilance Commissioner of State of West Bengal is directed to initiate an inquiry against that particular Certificate Officer who dealt with the gratuity Case No 72/15/G/HOW and passed the order dated 21.10.2019 and to take all steps required for enquiring the action of the said particular Recovery Officer and to take subsequent action thereafter", the Court further ordered. BackgroundIn the instant case, the petitioner was a worker at a Jute Mill called Delta Limited and had joined service on April 27, 1970. Thereafter he had been superannuated on May 29, 2003. As his gratuity had not been paid by the jute mill, he had initiated proceedings in accordance with the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Subsequently, a gratuity case was initiated by the concerned Controlling Authority who was the Assistant Labour Commissioner after receiving an application from the petitioner. The Assistant Labour Commissioner came to the conclusion that an amount of Rs. 1,83,119 had to be paid by the jute mill to the petitioner. Accordingly, he had issued requisition for a certificate to the Certificate Officer, an officer in the District Magistrate's Office of the district of Howrah. The Certificate Officer after receiving the requisition started a case under the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913 (PDR Act) and ultimately vide order dated October 21, 2019 he had rejected the requisition for certificate after recording that the Assistant Labour Commissioner had not abided by the Rules under the Gratuity Act. Accordingly, the instant petition had been filed for setting aside the order of the Certificate Officer. Observations The Court at the outset outlined that the issue in consideration was whether for recovery and payment of unpaid gratuity to a superannuated worker the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is sufficient for realizing and paying the due gratuity amount or whether the Controlling Authority after taking necessary steps under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 has to again follow the provisions outlined under the PDR Act, 1913. Placing reliance on Section 8 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, the Court observed that if gratuity is not paid by the employer within the prescribed time, the controlling authority has to issue a certificate to the Collector for the recovery of the outstanding amount (with compound interest) as arrears of land revenue. "Three things are required to be taken note of in the above provision of recovery of gratuity: (i) The Controlling Authority has to issue a certificate (on an application made to it by the entitled person); (ii) Certificate is to be issued to the Collector; (iii) The Collector shall recover the payable gratuity with interest as arrears of land revenue and pay the same to the persons entitled thereto", the Court noted further. The Court further noted that it was the duty of the Certificate Officer to recover the amount with compound interest from the employer as arrears of land revenue and accordingly pay the same to the petitioner. Reprimanding the conduct of the Certificate Officer, the Court observed that the Certificate Officer despite being 'an erudite scholar of law' had 'given complete advantage to the Jute Mill' so that the owners of the Jute Mill could avoid payment of gratuity to the petitioner. Referring to a letter of the Assistant Labour Commissioner dated September 16, 2019, the Court further noted that the Certificate Officer had played the same role for a large number of claim of gratuity cases. It was further noted that the Assistant Labour Commissioner in its order had made 'absolutely no reference' to referring to the provisions of the Bengal PDR Act, 1913. "This Bengal PDR Act 1913 is wholly the invention of the CO for rejecting the requisition", the Court underscored. Thus, the Court opined that the Certificate Officer had...

'Hypocrite' 'Illegal': Calcutta HC Directs State Gov To Initiate Proceedings Against Recovery Officer For Rejecting Claim Of Jute Mill Worker Under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972

Aaratrika Bhaumik

Tags