- (1.) The Court : The petitioner in this WP under art.226 dated August 30, 2012 is alleging that for undisclosed reasons the respondents liable to pay him gratuity, etc. and not disputing his entitlement and their liability have not paid the benefits.
(2.) It is not disputed that the petitioner voluntarily retired from services of Calcutta State Transport Corporation (in short CSTC) on November 30, 2009, and that CSTC incurred an obligation to pay him gratuity, etc. on December 1, 2009. Nor is it disputed that CSTC has not paid him the benefits.
(3.) Mr Deb Roy appearing for CSTC 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.). In my opinion, financial crisis, if any, of CSTC is not a ground to say that it was or is entitled to withhold the petitioner's gratuity, etc. It was under an obligation to pay the benefits on December 1, 2009. By withholding the benefits it has caused irreparable loss and harassment to the petitioner. This is a litigation it has generated without any valid reason.;