Justice Jayanta Kumar Biswas - (1.) THE petitioner in this WP under art.226 dated July 10, 2012 is alleging that for undisclosed reasons the respondents liable to pay him balance gratuity, 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 December 31, 2009, and that CTC incurred an obligation to pay him balance gratuity, etc. on January 1, 2010. 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.). In my opinion, financial crisis, if any, of CTC 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 January 1, 2010. 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.
(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.;