KAMAL KRISHNA BOSE Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the matters are inter-connected, both the appeal as well as civil revisional application are taken up together for disposal. MAT 1136 of 2021 has been filed by the workman challenging an order passed in W.P.A. No.11999 of 2021 dtd. 27/9/2021. By the said writ petition, the appellant / workman sought to give effect to the order passed by the Certificate Officer, Howrah dtd. 3/3/2021 determining the compound interest payable to the appellant workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 to Rs.1,27,756.00. Soon after the writ petition was filed and notice was served on the appellant / workman, the management had served copies of the civil revision petition filed by them challenging the order of the Certificate Officer dtd. 3/3/2021. The learned Single Bench while hearing the writ petition opined that since the order of the Certificate Officer has been challenged independently in C.O. No.741 of 2021, it would not be appropriate to issue any writ of mandamus to implement the said order. Accordingly, the relief sought for in the writ petition was declined. Aggrieved by the same, the workman is on appeal before us.

(2.) The management had filed the civil revision petition by contending that the workman had consciously entered into a Memorandum of Settlement with the management and accepted a sum of Rs.3,15,324.00 as full and final settlement towards all claims under the Payment of Gratuity Act and that application for grant of compound interest was not maintainable and the Controlling Authority herein computed and directed payment of compound interest. It is contended that the management placed reliance on a decision of the High Court of Madras in M/s. Andhra Laundry Vs. Presiding Officer reported at 1976 SCC OnLine Mad 286 for the proposition that once a workman signs a receipt in full and final settlement, he waives his right to claim any of the benefits under the statute.

(3.) Further, for proposition that the workman cannot approbate and reprobate, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra Sankla and Ors. Vs. Vikram Cement and Ors. reported at (2008) 1 SCC 58. Furthermore, it is submitted that the workman cannot resile from the terms of settlement, which was a compromise settlement and to support such contention, reliance has been placed on the decision of the High Court of Madras in the case of M. Devadasan Vs. The Management, M/s. Southern Roadways Ltd. reported at 1964 SCR (4) 680. Further, it is contended that the terms of settlement is valid and it cannot be held to be hit by Sec. 14 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and for such proposition, reliance has been placed on the decision in the case of V. Vaithyanathan and Ors. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Thiruchirapally and Anr. reported at 2002 (3) LLN 539.