1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction APPELLATE SIDE Present: The Hon’ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) WPA 13500 of 2025 Hooghly Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs Shambhu Roy & Ors. For the Petitioner : Mr. Soumya Majumder, Ld. Sr. Adv. Mr. S. K. Singh, Adv. Mr. R.K. Dubey, Adv. For the Respondent No.1 : Mr. Uddipan Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Subhrakanti Samanta, Adv. Judgment reserved on : 24.08.2026 Judgment delivered on : 29.09.2026 Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.: 1. The writ application has been preferred challenging orders dated 08.04.2024 and 17.03.2025 passed by the Controlling Authority and the appellate authority. 2. The petitioner’s case in short is that the petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of jute products; and the Respondent no. 1 was an employee under the petitioner. Being served with an application in form N filed by the respondent no. 1 on 14.05.2014, the 2 petitioner duly submitted its written objection against the same on 06.02.2015, inter alia, denying all the material allegations leveled it. It was the case of the respondent no. 1 that he was appointed as Badli on 25.05.1980 and he resigned from service on 01.02.2014. The respondent no. 1 admitted that he remained a badli worker till his last day of service. 3. The Controlling Authority, after hearing the parties and considering the documents placed on record and also the evidence adduced before him, passed on order dated 08.04.2024, inter alia, directing the petitioner to make payment of Rs. 1,72,931/- towards Gratuity and Rs. 1,68,608/- towards interest. Being aggrieved by the order dated 08.04.2024 passed by the Controlling Authority, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority, which was duly contested by the respondent no. 1 by way of filing its written objection against the same, inter alia, specifically denying the contentions of the respondent no. 1 on the points as mentioned therein. Ultimately, the appeal preferred by the petitioner was disposed of by an order dated 17.03.2025, inter alia, upholding the order passed by the Controlling Authority. 4. Petitioner on filing written notes has argued that the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority completely turned blind eye towards the contradictory statements made by the respondent no. 1, inasmuch as in his service book his date of birth is mentioned as 1961, according to which, as per his version he joined petitioner 3 company at the age of 19 years, whereas, as per his written deposition dated 29.04.2015, he was aged 50 years, which goes to show that his date of birth would be some time in the year 1965. From the same it is evident that the respondent has made false statement/declaration either at the time of making of service book, or at the time of making written deposition. 5. The Authorities completely overlooked the fact that if the version of the written deposition dated 29.04.2015, wherein he stated that he as aged 50 years, and resigned on 01.02.2014 and his cross examination dated 04.02.2016 (Pg. 47 of WP) wherein he claimed to have worked for 34 years 8 months i.e., 35 years for the company, according to which he started working for company at the age of 14 years. Such anomaly has been completely overlooked by them. The respondent authorities conveniently observed that the petitioner should produce documents, completely ignoring the arguments submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the responsibility to preserve attendance record by the petitioner is only 3 years as per W.B. Factory Rules and also the records of wages for 3 years as per Payment of Wages Act and Rules framed thereunder. 6. It is further stated that issuance of ESI card, by no stretch of imagination can be treated to be proof of the employee concerned having worked for 240 days. It is stated that registration under ESI Act, is required to be made even in respect of a person who works in an 4 establishment for a single day, as such that does not prove that the employee concerned has worked for 240 days in a year. 7. The authorities completely ignored the fact that the identity card issued by ESI and a single wage slip by no stretch of imagination prove that the respondent no. 1 had rendered 240 days service in each year. The Provisions of Section 2A of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1973 is pari materia to Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and while interpreting the said section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Hon’ble Apex Court dealt with the issues and determined as follows:- (i) The Hon’ble Apex Court in the Range Forest Officer vs. S. T. Hadimani reported in (2002) 3 SCC 25, observed as follows:- “It was the case of the claimant that he had so worked but this claim was denied by the appellant. It was then for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had in fact worked for 240 days in the year preceding his termination. Filing of an affidavit is only his own statement in his favour and that cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that a workman had, in fact, worked for 240 days in a year. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record of appointment 5 or engagement for this period was produced by the workman.” (ii) Further in another judgment Manager, R.B.I., Bangalore vs. S. Mani & Ors. reported in (2005) 5 SCC 100 the Apex Court held that:- “28. The initial burden of proof was on the workmen to show that they had completed 240 days of service. The Tribunal did not consider the question from that angle. It held that the burden of proof was upon the Appellant on the premise that they have failed to prove their plea of abandonment of service…. 35. Only because the Appellant failed to prove their plea of abandonment of service by the Respondents, the same in law cannot be taken to be a circumstance that the Respondents have proved their case. 36. The circumstance relied upon, in our opinion, are wholly irrelevant for the purpose of considering as to whether the Respondents have completed 240 days of service or not. A party to the lis may or may not succeed in its defence. A party to the lis may be filing representations or raising demands, but filing of such representations or raising of demands cannot be treated as circumstances to prove their case.” 8. The Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in FMA 882 of 2024 (The Ganges Manufacturing Company Ltd. v. State of West Bengal & Ors.), (Para 9 and 14) while dealing with the issue of “onus to prove working for 240 days in case of badli worker”, relying upon the 6 judgment of Lalappa Lingappa & Ors. vs. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills Ltd. (1981) 2 SCC 238, held:- “9. It is clear from the above that a Badli workman while remaining in the records of the employer, is required to report very morning of a working day for duty. In the event of a vacancy in a permanent post of workman, such workman is allotted to the Badli worker. 14. A Badli workman like the respondent workman in the instant case stands on a completely different footing as explained in Lalappa Lingappa case (supra), he remains in the records of the Company as a Badli worker. He is like a spare workman. His engagement depends on whether a permanent workman is absent on the particular day. It is then that the Badli workman is entrusted with the work due to the absence of the permanent workman.” 9. The petitioner has, thus, prayed for setting aside of the impugned orders. 10. The respondent no. 1 employee on filing written notes has relied upon the following judgments of the Supreme Court in:- a) General Manager (P & EEL), Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. vs. Asim Kumar Chatterjee reported in 2016 149 FLR 497. b) Murlidhar Rantanlal Exports Ltd. vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. Reported in 2014 3 CHN 78. c) Sriram Industrial Enterprises Ltd. vs. Mahak Singh & Ors. reported in AIR 2007 SC 1370 : (2007) 4 SCC 94 : LNIND 2007 SC 300 : 2007 II LLJ 393. 11. The Respondent has also relied upon the provision of Section 2 (a) (1) of the Payment of Gratuity Act. 7 12. The Respondent has further submitted that the Special Badli and contract workers are eligible for gratuity and has further relied upon the following judgments in support of the said contention:- 1. Uttar Pradesh Bhumi Sudhar Nigam, Luchnow v. Appellate Authority, 2011 LLR 164 (ALL HC). 2. Madurantakkam Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd., rep. by its Special Officer, Padalam v. Joint Commissioner of Labour (Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972), 2012 LLR 443 (SN); 2012-I CLR 779 (Mad HC)]. 13. Vide the impugned order dated 08.04.2024, the Controlling authority held as follows:- “In this instant case, there exists no issue related to joining, resignation date or the last wages drawn by the applicant-employee. The only dispute lies on the question of eligibility of the employee to get the gratuity. In his evidence the applicant claimed that he had joined the O.P. Co. in 25.05.80 as a worker (he exhibited photocopy of E.S.I. Card which is marked as A-Ex- 2) and resigned from service on 01/02/2014 after serving the O.P. Co. continuously for 34 years (he exhibited photocopy of a written note which is marked as A-Ex-3). The applicant claimed Rs.398.34/- as his last drawn wages for 8 hours and exhibited photocopy of wage slip dated 31.12.1013 as his last drawn wages which is marked as A-Ex-4. Besides, he exhibited wage slips ranging from 2001 to 2013 (19.12.2001; 18.12.2002; 31.12.2003; 01.01.2003; 29.12.2004; 28.12.2005; 27.12.2006; 10.01.2007; 09.01.2008; 24.12.2008, 07.01.2009; 06.01.2010, 22.12.2010; 31.12.2011 and 31.12.2012) issued by the O.P. Co. which are marked as A-Ex-4-series) which show that he had worked more than 240 days in each year. 8 From the 'date of joining' into service and 'date of resignation' in this case it is clear that he had served the company fог 34 years. But he became P.F. member in 13.04.1983. So, I consider 13.04.1983 to 01/02/2014 as his continuous period of service. i.e. 29 years. His last drawn wages was Rs.397.54/- (Basic+D.A. = ₹320.30+ ₹5245.29-5565.59/112X8 as per the wages slip dated 31.12.2013) for 8 hours. Therefore, the applicant Sri Shambhu Roy is entitled to get gratuity of ₹1,72,931/- (397.54/-x 15 x 29) only along with interest from the date of retirement year i.e. from 01/02/2014 in terms of Sec.7 (3A) read with Notification No. S.O.874 (E) dated 01.10.1987 @10% upon Rs.1,72,931/- for 09 years and 09 months; which amounts to ₹1,68,608/.. Hence in view of the entire findings as recorded in the foregoing paragraphs, it is ORDERED That the employer M/s. Hooghly Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (Unit-Hukumchand Jute Mill) will make payment of Rs.3, 41,539/- (Rupees three lakhs forty-one thousand five hundred and thirty-nine) only to Sri Shambhu Roy within 30 days from the date of receipt of the direction in Form-R sent together with this finding. SD/- Controlling Authority, Under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 Barrackpur, 24 Parganas (N)” 14. In appeal, the Appellate authority vide its order dated 17.03.2025 held:- “In the instant case, the respondent workman had discharged his initial onus by producing whatever documents available with him and in his custody to establish that he was in employment for 240 days in a year. The appellant was in possession of the best evidence which he could not produce. So, an adverse inference may be drawn in view of the failure on the part of the 9 appellant to produce the original service record even on being ordered by the Ld. Controlling Authority (vide Mahant Shri Srinivas Ramanuj Das vs. Surjanarayan Das & Anr; AIR 1967 SC 256). While the appellant who is statutorily bound to maintain the attendance registers of his employees fails to produce the same, the respondent, being a jute mill worker and placed in a weaker position to his employer is hardly expected to preserve the details of his service records after expiry of a long period of time from his retirement. Given above, drawing an adverse inference, I am left with no other option but to hold that the appellant employer failed to establish that the respondent workman had not rendered continuous service from the year 1980 to 01/02/2014 in his company. Hence, I fund no reason to differ with the views of the Ld. Controlling Authority (respondent no. 1). The instant appeal is thus decided against the appellant and disposed of herewith.” 15. On hearing the parties and considering the materials on record, this Court finds that the worker/employee has produced sufficient documents, which the authorities rightly held to be sufficient, when the petitioner/establishment failed to produce any documents. 16. The best evidence was duly considered by the authorities and the impugned orders being in accordance with law requires no interference. 17. WPA 13500 of 2025 is dismissed. 18. Applications, if any, connected thereto stand disposed of consequently. 19. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 10 20. Photostat certified copy of this Judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis upon compliance of all formalities. (Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)