- (1.) The writ petition has been filed against purported proceedings initiated by the 'Controlling Authority' under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, without having any jurisdiction to initiate the same and also against the purported recovery proceeding initiated by the Certificate Officer against the petitioners for realisation of the amount, so calculated and determined by the said 'Controlling Authority'. It has been stated in the writ petition that the petitioner No. 1 is a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. As the said Company sustained continuous loss and financial crisis since 1990; so it was referred to BIFR. The production of the Company came to a halt in May, 2000. As such, salary and wages of the employees could be paid only up to June, 2000. So, the management decided to make some ad-hoc payments to the employees in lieu of wages and salaries, as a measure to mitigate-the hardship. The Company was registered as a sick Company with the BIFR. The petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the officials of the petitioner No. 1/Company. But they are not the persons in control over the ultimate affairs of the said company which has several branches all over India, i.e. in Delhi, Kanpur, Ludhiana, Mumbai, Chennai, Coimbatore, Kochi and Bangalore. The respondent No. 4 was officiating as an Assistant Manager, Accounts for a considerable time in the petitioner/Company. On 25.9.2000 he submitted resignation letter stating therein that he would not attend office from 26.9.2000. Consequently, he stopped attending the office from that date without handing over the charge to anybody. The respondent No. 4 did not serve the notice, which is required for submitting a resignation letter. Said resignation was never accepted by the management of the petitioner/Company and no formal release order was issued in favour of the respondent No. 4. Subsequently, on 17.10.2000, the respondent No. 4 filed an application before the 'Controlling Authority' under the Payment of Gratuity Act, West Bengal i.e. respondent No. 2. Said application was forwarded to the petitioner/Company by the respondent No. 2. Ultimately, the respondent No. 2 passed an ex parte order in respect of the application for payment of gratuity, as filed by the respondent No. 4, wherein it. was held that the respondent No. 4 was entitled to a sum of Rs. 23,076/- towards gratuity along with interest @ 10% per annum from the date'when the said gratuity amount became due. Said order was forwarded to the petitioner/Company by the respondent No. 2. Subsequently, respondent No. 3 took steps for recovery of the said amount of gratuity, as purportedly determined by the respondent No. 2 and issued a certificate of public demand under the provisions of Sections 4 and 6 of the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913. By a letter dated 5.3.2000, the Advocate of the petitioner No. 1 informed the Certificate Officer that since the Company was declared sick, so no execution proceeding could be initiated against the petitioner/Company as per provisions of Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. A scheme was prepared by the BIFR under Section 17 of the Act in respect of the petitioner/Company for implementation. Although, those notices were issued in the name of the petitioner No. 1/ Company, suddenly on 16.7.2002 the Certificate Officer issued notices in the names of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3. According to the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, no notice was ever issued in their names for the purpose of determining the amount of gratuity, allegedly payable to the respondent No. 4. As the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are not the persons in control over the affairs of the petitioner/Company, so the notices that were issued in the names of the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are liable to be set aside. According to the petitioners, as per provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, an 'appropriate Government' in relation of an establishment having branches in more than one State, is the Central Government. As the petitioner/Company has its branches in several States of India, so in respect of the said Company, the 'appropriate Government' in respect of the establishment in question, is the Central Government and as such the respondent No. 2 being an authority under the control of the West Bengal Government cannot have any jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the respondent No. 4 claiming gratuity and as such the entire proceedings before the respondent No. 2 and the consequent certificate proceedings which were started therefrom, suffers from inherent and patent lack of jurisdiction. As the entire proceedings, which were started by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are thoroughly illegal and without jurisdiction, so the petitioners have filed this writ petition praying for setting aside the notices, which were issued in the names of the petitioners by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
(2.) In addition to the writ petition, the petitioners have filed one supplementary affidavit wherein it has been clearly mentioned about the names and addresses of the branches of the petitioner/Company which are situated outside West Bengal. In the said supplementary affidavit copies of the letters, which were written from time to time on behalf of the petitioner/ Company to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have also been annexed.
(3.) The respondent No. 4 Dilip Kumar Dey, the concerned workman, contested the matter by filing an affidavit in opposition wherein he has denied the allegations of the petitioners on material points. According to him, as the petitioners did not pay the amount of gratuity which was due to him, consequent upon his submission of resignation to the petitioner/Company, so the respondent No. 2 was perfectly justified in determining the said amount and directing the respondent No. 3 to realise the same as per provisions of Public Demands Recovery Act. The respondent No. 4 further claimed that the respondent No. 3 rightly issued the notice to the petitioners for realisation of the said amount. Against the supplementary affidavit of the petitioners, the respondent No. 4 also filed an affidavit-in-opposition whereby, as it appears that an attempt has been made to deny the claims of the petitioners.;