The Calcutta High Court clarifies that an employer’s obligation to release gratuity to a nominee is statutory and cannot be withheld merely due to doubts regarding marital status or legal heirship; family pension, however, may require further verification. This judgment affirms existing statutory mandates under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and serves as binding authority for employers and legal practice in service and employment matters.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPA/18132/2025 of LAKSHMI RANI MAITY Vs KOLKATA PORT TRUST AND ORS. |
| CNR | WBCHCA0366772025 |
| Date of Registration | 06-08-2025 |
| Decision Date | 28-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA ROY |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Bench | Single Bench: ANIRUDDHA ROY, J. |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within West Bengal; persuasive elsewhere |
| Type of Law | Service Law, Statutory Interpretation under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 |
| Questions of Law | Whether an employer can withhold gratuity from a nominee in the absence of proof regarding the legal heir status and/or marital status? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon | No prior judgments expressly cited in the extracted text. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and general principles of nomination and statutory entitlement to gratuity; distinction drawn between gratuity and family pension entitlements. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner, acknowledged as the second wife and nominee of a deceased Kolkata Port Trust employee, sought release of family pension and gratuity. While her name was listed as nominee in service records (with minor dispute over spelling), gratuity and pension were withheld by the employer due to lack of clarity regarding her marital status and in absence of a death certificate of the deceased’s first wife; the petitioner later produced the said certificate. Provident Fund was previously released without dispute. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in the State of West Bengal and authorities under Calcutta High Court jurisdiction. |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, tribunals, and authorities outside West Bengal; service law practitioners nationwide. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The judgment clearly demarcates between nomination-based release of gratuity (which is mandatory and should not be withheld for extraneous reasons) and the more complex process of determination for family pension (where legal heir status may require further verification).
- Employers cannot delay or deny payment of gratuity to the nominee solely on the ground of pending verification of marital status or legal heirship.
- Interest at 6% per annum awarded for delayed payment of gratuity, reinforcing employer liability for delays.
- The family pension can be initiated upon production and verification of the death certificate of the previous spouse; arrears are payable without interest.
- Once gratuity and pension are disbursed to the nominee/claimant as per court directions, any subsequent rival claims must be agitated only against the recipient, not the employer.
- Confirmation that the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 operates as a benevolent and mandatory statutory framework.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court observed that the petitioner was the duly nominated individual in the deceased employee’s service records, and had already received the Provident Fund without objection.
- Under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, the employer has an unequivocal obligation to release gratuity to the nominee upon the death of the employee; withholding on grounds of doubt about marital status or legal heirship is not sanctioned by law.
- The Court distinguished between gratuity and family pension: gratuity is payable by virtue of statutory nomination, while family pension requires verification of legal heir status.
- The employer’s action in withholding gratuity was found to be “without due process of law” and contrary to statutory obligations.
- Directions were issued for immediate release of gratuity with interest, and for initiation of family pension payment upon satisfactory verification of the death certificate of the first wife.
- The Court held that any subsequent rival claims must be litigated against the recipient, absolving the employer from further responsibility post-compliance with court orders.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Claimed release of family pension and gratuity as the second wife and recorded nominee of the deceased employee.
- Relied on civil court decree declaring her as lawful second wife.
- Highlighted that her nomination was on record and Provident Fund had been released without objection.
Respondent (Kolkata Port Trust)
- Contended that the petitioner failed to initially produce death certificate of the first wife, raising doubts over lawful marital status and entitlement.
- Stated that the appropriateness of releasing family pension depended on verification of the said death certificate.
- Later admitted petitioner’s status as second wife following production of relevant documents.
Factual Background
The petitioner, listed as nominee and claiming status as second wife in service records of a deceased Kolkata Port Trust employee (who died on 11 July 2006 while in service), sought release of withheld gratuity and family pension. The Port Trust initially objected due to the absence of the death certificate of the deceased’s first wife, casting doubt over her marital status. The petitioner produced a civil court decree in her favour, but a previous bench had expressed reservations about its sufficiency. Eventually, the petitioner produced the first wife’s death certificate, leading to the present adjudication.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court interpreted the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, reinforcing that gratuity must be released to the nominee immediately upon death of the employee, regardless of pending questions of marital status or legal heirship. This was recognized as a mandatory statutory obligation.
- The distinction was made between statutory entitlement to gratuity (by nomination) and eligibility for family pension (dependent on legal heir status and further verification).
- Interest as provided under the Act was directed, applying a simple interest calculation for delay.
- No constitutional provisions were expressly discussed in the extracted text.
Procedural Innovations
- The Court adopted a practical approach by allowing the matter to be finally heard on the basis of existing pleadings, waiving further replies; affidavit-in-opposition was taken on record on the day of hearing.
- Set a procedural precedent regarding employer liability: once statutory compliance is done in terms of gratuity/pension payment as per court order, rival claimants must litigate directly with the recipient, not the employer.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms the existing statutory framework under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and reinforces employer obligations to nominees.