SUSHOBHAN GANGULY Vs. CALCUTTA TRAMWAYS COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this WP under art. 226 dated October 3, 2012 is alleging that for undisclosed reasons the respondents liable to pay him gratuity, leave salary, etc. and not disputing his entitlement and their liability have not paid the benefits. It is not disputed that the petitioner retired from services of Calcutta Tramways Company (in short CTC) on October 31, 2011, and that CTC incurred an obligation to pay him gratuity, leave salary, etc. on November 1, 2011. Nor is it disputed that CTC has not paid him the benefits.

(2.) MR . Deb Roy appearing for CTC submits that the petitioner was paid in excess of his entitlement; that the amount payable could not be paid for acute financial crisis; and that for gratuity the petitioner had a remedy under s. 8 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. He has relied on an unreported Division Bench decision dated March 27, 2012 in MAT No. 112 of 2012 (The Managing Director, CTC Ltd. & Ors. v. Munshi Abdul Rouf & Ors.).

(3.) THE plea that for gratuity the petitioner had a remedy under s. 8 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is without any merit. Availability of a statutory remedy such as the one under s. 8 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is not a bar to seek the art. 226 remedy. Besides, the petitioner's entitlement to gratuity and liability of CTC to pay gratuity both are undisputed.