IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Lanusungkum Jamir

And

The Hon’ble Justice Rai Chattopadhyay

MAT 254 of 2025

With

I.A. No.: CAN 1 of 2025

M/s Delta Ltd.

Versus

State of West Bengal & Ors.

With

MAT 2099 of 2024

Delta Ltd.

Versus

State of West Bengal & Ors.

For the appellant : Ms. Amrita Pandey

: Ms. Sayanwita Auddya

For the respondent No. 1 : Mr. R. Guha Thakurta

: Ms. S. Sengupta

For the State : Mr. Susovan Sengupta

: Mr. Manas Kumar Sadhu

Heard on : 09/01/2026

Judgment on : 19/01/2026

Page 2 of 20

Rai Chattopadhyay, J. :-

1) The present appeals are directed against the order dated May

21, 2024, of the Hon’ble Single Judge, in the writ petitions No.

WPA 14251 of 2024 and WPA 14512 of 2024. Those have been

heard analogously and are being disposed of by dint of this

common judgment.

2) The issue involved and determinable is with regard to the

amount of statutory deposit to be remitted by the present

appellant, before the statutory appellate authority, in case and

when the appellant seeks to prefer a statutory appeal before the

statutory appellate authority. The relevant facts culminating in

to the instant appeals may be discussed in a nut-shell, before

going into the disputed question of law.

3) The respondent No.5 [herein after mentioned as ‘the workman’],

has been in employment with the appellant jute mill as budli

workman, who were superannuated from the service on

January 1, 2014. The respondent workmen say that they are

entitled for payment of gratuity on their superannuation,

though not paid by the appellant/jute mill. Therefore, they have

approached the statutory authority for recovery of gratuity

amount with interest, by filing applications under section 7 of

Page 3 of 20

the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 in statutory form in the year

2018.

4) The ‘controlling authority’ has passed its order on June 3,

2022, directing the appellant/jute mill to pay a total sum of

Rs.3,92,932/-, including the gratuity and interest. Due to non-

compliance of such direction by the present appellant, a

certificate was issued against it under section 8 of the said Act

of 1972, on October 28, 2022, to the tune of Rs.3,92,932/-

and statutory interests. The same has been duly forwarded to

the ‘certificate officer’, being the designated statutory authority,

for recovery of the amount.

5) The respondents/workmen thereafter have filed writ petitions

challenging the inordinate delay and inaction on part of the said

statutory authority, to execute the certificate. During hearing of

the writ petitions the present appellant has submitted about

pendency of a statutory appeal against the determination of the

amount of gratuity and interest. Hence, the Court in its order

dated October 11, 2023, has disposed of the writ petitions

directing the appellate authority, Howrah to dispose of the

appeal within 2 months.

Page 4 of 20

6) The appellate authority’s order is dated March 20, 2024, by

dint of which the said appellate authority has dismissed the

appeal, filed before it by the present appellant/jute mill on the

ground inter alia that the present appellant/jute mill has not

deposited the stipulated amount of money as per section 7(4) of

the Act of 1972, at the time of filing the appeal. It is beneficial

for discussion that the said order be quoted, as herein below:

“Order dated: 20.03.2024

The Appellant is present in today's hearing through their

authorized representative after filing authorization letter which is

accepted and filed. All the above-mentioned appeal petition is

heard & considered. The instant appeal petition filed by the

Appellant is not inconformity with the provisions of section 7 of

the Payment of the Gratuity Act., 1972 which states inter alia –

" (7) Any Person aggrieved by an Order under Sub Section (4) may,

_______________________________

..............................................................................................

....................................................................................

Provided further that no appeal by an Employer shall be admitted

unless at the time of preferring the appeal, the appellant either

procedures a certificate of the Controlling Authority to the effect

that the appellant has deposited with him an amount equal to the

amount of gratuity required to be deposited under Sub Section (4)

or deposits with the Appellate Authority such amount."

in the instant appeal case, the appellant did not deposit the

amount as directed by the Controlling Authority. The Appellant

made the appeal depositing an amount of Rs. 58,912.50 whereas

direction amount of the Controlling Authority is Rs. 3,92,932.00

Page 5 of 20

(Gratuity amount Rs. 2,14,365.60 plus Interest Rs.1,78,566. 40).

The appellant was directed to deposit the balance amount for the

admissibility of the appeal petition but he did not deposit the

amount. So, the above-mentioned appeal petition filed by the

appellant is rejected. The Controlling Authority (Respondent No.

1) is directed to proceed.”

7) Since even after dismissal of the appeal as above by the

appellate authority, no steps were allegedly being taken for

execution of the certificat e issued earlier, the

respondents/workmen filed the writ petitions WPA 14251 of

2024 and WPA 14512 of 2024. In the said writ petitions the

Hon’ble Single Bench has passed the order dated May 21,

2024, which is challenged in the instant appeal.

8) The Hon’ble Single Bench has taken into consideration the

proviso to section 7 of the Act of 1972 and found that the

admitted amount of gratuity which has been said by the jute

mill, to have been deposited by it at the time of filing the

statutory appeal to the tune of Rs. 58,912/- is however relevant

only for the purpose of proceedings before the ‘controlling

authority’ and not the ‘appellate authority’. The relevant portion

of the order of the Hon’ble Single Judge is quoted as herein

below:-

Page 6 of 20

“5. This Court notes that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in

the order dated 11th October, 2023 was completely misled by

the respondent no.5/employer. The proviso to Section 7 of the

said Act of 1972 has not been placed before the Court. The

admitted amount of gratuity is relevant only for the purpose of

proceedings before the Controlling Authority and not the

Appellate Authority.

6. This Court is, therefore, of the view that that the defence

advanced by the respondents is wholly baseless and devoid of

merit.

7. For having misled the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court into

believing and passing order in question the Company shall

pay costs assessed at Rs.7,000/- (Rupees seven thousand only)

to the High Court Legal Services Authority.

8. Having regard to the fact that the Controlling Authority has

adjudicated the liability of the Company towards the petitioner

for a total sum of Rs.3,92,932/-, the Certificate Officer shall

expeditiously complete execution of the certificate dated 28th

October, 2022 together with any further interest, preferably

within a period of two months from the date of communication

of a copy of this order.”

9) Ms. Amrita Pandey, learned advocate for the appellant has

submitted that the statutory appellate authority in its order

dated March 20, 2024, and the Hon’ble Single Bench in that

dated May 21, 2024, have erred and misconstrued the legal

provisions to ultimately come to a decision which is not in

Page 7 of 20

accordance with law. That, the mandates under the statute

have been oversighted and violated in the said orders which

have rendered the same as illegal and non-est in the eye of law.

With reference to section 4(a) and section 7(7) 2

nd

proviso of the

Act of 1972, it has been submitted that in case of grievance as

regards the applicability or the quantum of gratuity determined

the aggrieved person has a statutory right to prefer an appeal

before the statutory appellate authority and in that case, it

would be obliged to deposit the undisputed agreed amount of

gratuity payable, before that appellate authority at the time of

preferring the appeal. Learned advocate has submitted that the

present appellant has done exactly in terms of the statutory

provisions, and has preferred the appeal by depositing the

undisputed amount of gratuity to the tune of Rs.58,912/-. She

has further submitted that in the appeal filed before the

statutory appellate authority, the present appellant had

questioned firstly that if the respondents/workmen were

entitled to gratuity at all; also that, in that case what should be

the quantum of gratuity payable to them. Hence the entitlement

as to or the quantum of gratuity being challenged by the

present appellant in the said statutory appeal, the appellant is

only required to deposit in accordance with law the amount of

gratuity payable, to which it agrees, she submits. According to

Page 8 of 20

the learned advocate, to this extent the present appellant has

done no illegality or irregularity by depositing the agreed

amount of gratuity payable, at the time of filing the statutory

appeal and orders of the appellate authority dated March 20,

2024, and the Hon’ble Single Bench in that dated May 21,

2024, suffer from gross illegality being not in confirmation with

the statutory provision.

10) The appellant in this case has referred to the following two

judgments of this Court in support of the case made out by the

same. Those are mentioned bellow:

(i) Auckland International Limited Unit -Auckland

Jute Mill & Another vs the State of West Bengal &

Others (2006) 3 CHN 299;

“11. A perusal of the sub-section reveals the employer is

required to deposit with the controlling authority the

amount he admits to be payable as gratuity.

12. In the present case, the employer admits that a sum

of Rs. 32,194/- is payable for the purpose of preferring the

appeal and in terms of sub-section (4)(a) had forwarded the

cheque. In my view, the appellate authority erred in passing

the impugned order dated 31

st

August, 2004 in dismissing

the appeal and the order dated 28

th

June, 2005 rejecting the

review petition since the employer was ready to deposit

„such amount he admits‟. Besides, I find this proposition is

also covered by the judgment of this Court in Gloster Jute

Mills (supra). Moreover, sub-section (2) of section 7 lays

down as soon as “gratuity becomes payable” it shall be

Page 9 of 20

determined by the employer. Interest becomes payable

under section 7(3A) of the Act if gratuity is not paid to an

employee by the employer within the time specified in sub-

section (3). Sub-section (4)(a) of the said section postulates

in case of „any dispute as to the amount of gratuity payable‟,

the employer shall deposit with the „controlling authority

such amount as he admits to be payable by him‟. Therefore,

sub-section (4)(a) relates to a dispute regarding the

quantum or amount of gratuity payable which is distinct

and separate from the question of payment of interest under

section 7(3A) for belated payment of gratuity. It is, thus,

clear that „interest‟ cannot form part of „gratuity‟ payable.

Sub-sections (3A) and (4)(a) have different applications in

different spheres. Therefore, in view of the findings as

above, in my view the appellate authority erred in passing

the orders dated 31.8.2004 and 28.6.2005 and consequently,

the memo dated 4.8.2005 is invalid and illegal.”

(ii) Gloster Jute Mills Limited vs Deputy Secretary

Labour Department & Others 2003(1) L.L.N. 123;

“2. In the present case the petitioner company as

employer admits that only the gratuity amount of Rs. 63,218

is payable for the purpose of preferring this appeal and as

such in terms of S. 4(a) the petitioner-company has

deposited the requisite amount for the purpose of preferring

appeal under Sub-sec. (7) of S. 7 of the said Payment of

Gratuity Act. In my view, the appellate authority has

committed an error by rejecting the appeal preferred by the

appellant on the ground that appellant company has not

deposited the entire amount of money as directed by the

controlling authority although in terms of Sub-sec. 4(a) of S.

7 the employer is required to deposit with the controlling

authority such amount as the said employer admits to be

payable for the purpose of preferring this appeal as gratuity

Page 10 of 20

and in the present case the employer has deposited the

admitted amount of gratuity.”

11) For the above reasons she has insisted that the impugned order

of the Hon’ble Single Judge as well as the order of the appellate

authority as stated above may be set aside and directions be

issued upon the appellate authority to immediately proceed

with the appeal.

12) Mr. R. Guha Thakurta, learned advocate has represented the

respondents/workmen. He has submitted that the statute has

mandated for an aggrieved person to prefer a statutory appeal,

to compulsorily deposit the amount as determined by the

‘controlling officer’, to be payable. He submits that an appeal

without compliance with the said statutory mandate is a bar in

the eye of law. According to him since admittedly the present

appellant has not deposited the amount of gratuity and interest

so determined by the ‘controlling officer’, at the time of filing of

the appeal, the said appeal is not maintainable. He further

submits that at the time of filing the appeal the present

appellant has not deposited any money whatsoever, in complete

derogation of the statutory provision. In support o f his

contention learned advocate has referred to the postal receipt

annexed with the stay application and submits further that

Page 11 of 20

according to the records, any money submitted before the

appellate authority, if at all, cannot be said to have been done

before 18.56 hours on October 11, 2023, whereas the order of

the Court dated October 11, 2023, passed within the Court

hours, would show that due to the misrepresentation of the

present appellant before the Court, it has been recorded in the

said order by the Court that, the admitted amount of gratuity

has already been secured by deposit with the ‘controlling

authority’. He submits further that the appellant jute mill has

not only been unscrupulous for this time only but on each and

every step, during the entire period. He says that the money

determined by the ‘controlling authority’ to the tune of

Rs.3,92,932/- has been paid by the appellant to the

respondents/workmen after about 2 years from the date of the

order and only at a threat of contempt of Court. He says that

the appellant has all along evaded its statutory responsibility

and willfully has violated the order of the statutory authority.

13) Regarding the ‘appellate authority’s’ order dated March 20,

2024, it has been submitted that the same is just, legal and

proper and in due observance of the statutory mandate.

Regarding the impugned order of the Hon’ble Single Bench

dated May 21, 2024, it has been submitted that the same

Page 12 of 20

having duly upheld the order as stated above, cannot be termed

as erroneous or illegal as alleged and no interference as to the

same by this Appeal Court is warranted at all. A Division Bench

judgment has been relied on by these respondents of Patna

High Court in General Manager (Region ), FCI, Patna vs

Union of India reported in 2019 I CLR 737 as follows:

“12. We are unable to agree to this submission inasmuch as the

mandate of the second proviso to sub-section (7) of Section 7 of

the Act is categorical that the amount of gratuity required to be

deposited has to be tendered by the employer before the

appellate authority which is an amount determined under

subsection (4) of Section 7 of this Act on a dispute being raised

before the controlling authority. The amount payable under

subsection (4) of Section 7 is not only an admitted amount, but

also includes the determined amount by the controlling

authority. The provisions of Section 7(4) (a) of the Act are

clearly relatable to a voluntary deposit of the admitted amount

to be made by the employer when the dispute is raised by the

employee. The adjudication that follows is for any balance of

the amount which the employer denies to the employee. After

adjudication an amount may be determined to be payable as

per Section 7(4) (c). This amount is the amount referable to the

second proviso to Section 7(7) of the Act where at the time of the

filing of the appeal after adjudication the employer has to

deposit the amount of gratuity which is required to be

deposited under sub-section (4). The legislative intent is clear

that this is the amount which has been adjudicated by the

controlling authority and it nowhere relates to the amount

deposited by the employer voluntarily which is admitted by the

employer and about which there is no dispute. The contention

of Sri Verma is, therefore, not in conformity with the aforesaid

explicit statutory provisions which admits of no ambiguity. The

judgement of the learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High

Page 13 of 20

Court in the case of Gloster Jute Mills Ltd. (supra) therefore,

does not lay down the law correctly in view of what has been

stated by us hereinabove.

13. We, are therefore, not persuaded by the ratio of the said

judgement and we, accordingly, hold that the appellant

employer was liable to deposit the amount so determined

under sub-section (4) of Section 7 of the Act before the appellate

authority.”

14) State has been represented by Mr. Susovan Sengupta, learned

advocate.

15) Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 has made

provision for filing an appeal, in the following manner:

“7.-- Determination of the amount of gratuity.

** ** ** ** **

(7) Any person aggrieved by an order under sub-section (4) may, within

sixty days from the date of the receipt of the order, prefer an appeal to

the appropriate Government or such other authority as may be specified

by the appropriate Government in this behalf:

Provided that the appropriate Government or the appellate authority, as

the case may be, may, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented

by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the said period of

sixty days, extend the said period by a further period of sixty days.

Provided further that no appeal by an employer shall be admitted unless

at the time of preferring the appeal, the appellant either produces a

certificate of the controlling authority to the effect that the appellant has

deposited with him an amount equal to the amount of gratuity required

to be deposited under subsection (4), or deposits with the appellate

authority such amount.”

Page 14 of 20

16) Therefore, at the time of preferring an appeal, the employer has

to deposit either with the ‘controlling authority’ and procure a

certificate or with the ‘appellate authority’, an amount equal to

the amount of gratuity required to be deposited under sub -

section (4) of section 7 of the said Act of 1972.

17) Section 7(4) of the said Act may be quoted as herein bellow:

“7.-- Determination of the amount of gratuity.

** ** ** ** **

(4) (a) If there is any dispute as to the amount of gratuity

payable to an employee under this Act or as to the admissibility of

any claim of, or in relation to, an employee for payment of gratuity,

or as to the person entitled to receive the gratuity, the employer shall

deposit with the controlling authority such amount as he admits to be

payable by him as gratuity.

(b) Where there is a dispute with regard to any matter or

matters specified in clause (a), the employer or employee or any

other person raising the dispute may make an application to the

controlling authority for deciding the dispute.

(c) The controlling authority shall, after due inquiry and after

giving the parties to the dispute a reasonable opportunity of being

heard, determine the matter or matters in dispute and if, as a result

of such inquiry any amount is found to be payable to the employee,

the controlling authority shall direct the employer to pay such

amount or, as the case may be, such amount as reduced by the

amount already deposited by the employer.

(d)The controlling authority shall pay the amount deposited,

including the excess amount, if any, deposited by the employer, to

the person entitled thereto.

Page 15 of 20

(e)As soon as may be after a deposit is made under clause (a),

the controlling authority shall pay the amount of the deposit –

(i) to the applicant where he is the employee; or

(ii) where the applicant is not the employee, to the nominee or, as

the case may be, the guardian of such nominee or heir of the

employee if the controlling authority is satisfied that there is no

dispute as to the right of the applicant to receive the amount of

gratuity.”

18) In the cases of Auckland Jute Mill (supra) and Gloster Jute

Mills Limited (supra), the Courts have held that section-7(4)(a)

relates to a dispute regarding the quantum or amount of

gratuity payable which is distinct and separate than the

question of payment of interest under section 7 (3-A) of the Act

of 1972 for belated payment of gratuity. The Courts have held

that sub-sections (3-A) and (4)(a) of section 7 of the said Act

have different applications in different spheres.

19) The second proviso to section 7(7) of the Act of 1972 refers to

the whole of section 7(4) thereof and is not confined only to

section 7(4)(a) of the same. Here, may the factual background of

the case be revisited once again. This is not a case in which an

application is to be adjudicated before the ‘controlling authority’

for deciding any dispute as to the amount of gratuity payable to

an employee under this Act or as to the admissibility of any

claim of, or in relation to, an employee for payment of gratuity.

Page 16 of 20

Fact remains that the ‘controlling authority’ has already

determined the amount of gratuity payable with interest, which

the appellant employer desires to challenge in a statutory

appeal. According to the second proviso to section 7(7) of the

Act of 1972, in that case the appellant/employer has to abide

by the provisions under section 7(4) of the Act.

20) As stated above, section-7(4) of the Act mentioned in the second

proviso of section 7(7) thereof means and includes section 7(4)

in its entirety, instead of section 7(4)(a) only. The Legislature in

its own wisdom has thus made separate and distinct statutory

arrangement, in case against an order passed by the ‘controlling

authority’, the employer intends to prefer an appeal.

21) On a careful perusal of the provisions as laid down under

Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, it appears that,

upon adjudication as to the dispute raised before the ‘controlling

authority’ regarding amount of gratuity payable or admissibility

of the claim of gratuity, an amount as determined by the said

Authority becomes payable under his order. Similar order of the

‘controlling authority’ in the instant case is that, dated June 03,

2022, by dint of which the ‘controlling authority’ has directed

for payment of Rs. 2 ,14,365.60/- as gratuity and Rs.

1,78,566.54/- as interest, totalling to the sum of Rs. 3,92,932/-

Page 17 of 20

(rounded off). A direction has been issued to the

employer/present appellant for payment of the said amount, in

accordance with the statutory provision. The statute has

provided that, after determination by the ‘controlling authority’,

the said amount becomes payable under the order of the

‘controlling authority’ and a direction to that effect to be issued

against the employer, for payment of such amount, with

deductions of the amount already deposited as per Section 7 (4)

(a) of the said Act.

22) The statutory provision further enjoins upon the ‘controlling

authority’ to pay the amount deposited including the excess

amount, to the person entitled thereto. Hence, it can be stated

that the deposit under Section 7 (4) (a) of the Act does not relate

to the amount admitted by the employer, at a stage as provided

under the second proviso to Section 7 (7) of the said Act, that is,

at the stage of an appeal.

23) This provision in the statute is to enable the employer to deposit

such amount about which there is no dispute. It is after

adjudication that, final amount is determined and the amount

already admitted by the employer and deposi ted, becomes

deductible or adjustable upon final determination. In effect,

therefore, in connection with second proviso to Section 7 (7) of

Page 18 of 20

the Act of 1972 that is, in connection with an appeal which the

employer seeks to prefer against an order of the ‘controlling

authority’, the provisions under Section 7 (4) as mentioned in

the said proviso, should have to construe in a fashion to mean

the amount so adjudicated by the ‘controlling authority’. This is

in clear contrast to the amount required to be deposited by the

employer as per the statutory terms , previous to any

adjudication and determination of dispute by the ‘controlling

authority’.

24) Amount to be secured with the ‘appellate authority’ in terms of

second proviso to Section 7 (7) of the Act has to be read within

all the Clauses as has been provided under sub-section 4 of

Section 7 of the said Act, which definitely indicates, means and

includes the amount of money determined by the ‘controlling

authority’ as payable to the workman.

25) In the instant case, the said amount is Rs. 3,92,932/-, as

mentioned above. Therefore, pursuant to the entire discussion

made above, this Court is of the decision that, the employer

should be held liable to deposit the entire amount as

determined by the ‘controlling authority’ as payable to the

employee (in this case vide order of the ‘controlling authority’

dated June 03, 2022). Therefore, this Court hardly finds any

Page 19 of 20

irregularity or alleged illegality in the order of the Hon’ble Single

Judge as impugned in the instant appeal.

26) The ratio decided in the cases of Auckland Jute Mill (supra)

and Gloster Jute Mills Limited (supra), has been the outcome

of different factual background as discussed therein, than the

instant case. There was no occasion before the Hon’ble Courts

in those cases to consider and interpret the provisions of law,

when the ‘controlling authority’ has already adjudicated and

determined the amount of gratuity which becomes disbursable

as per provision of Section 7(4) of the Act though which the

employer desires to challenge in a statutory appeal. That being

so, the ratio thereof are found not applicable in the instant

case.

27) For the entire discussion as above, this Appeal Court finds no

justified or cogent reason to interfere into the order of the

Hon’ble Single Judge dated September 21, 2024 in WPA No.

14512 of 2025. That leads this Appeal Court to dis miss the

instant appeal and upheld the order of the Hon’ble Single Judge

as above.

28) Since, the statutory ‘appellate authority’ in its order dated

March 20, 2025 has dismissed the appellant’s prayer before it

Page 20 of 20

due to non-compliance of the provision under Section 7 (4) of

the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, it is hereby directed in this

appeal that, the said Authority shall take appropriate steps to

recall its order as above in the event, within a period of 10 days

from the date of this judgment, the present appellant/employer

deposits the total amount as directed by the ‘controlling

authority’ with the said statutory ‘appellate authority’, in terms

of order of the Hon’ble Single Judge dated September 21, 2024

in WPA No. 14512 of 2024.

29) With the direction as above, the appeal stands dismissed.

30) Urgent certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be

supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite

formalities.

(Lanusungkum Jamir, J.)

(Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)