SK. YEASIN ALI DONA GHOSH vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. — WPA/24176/2023
Case under Payment of Gratuity Act ,1973 Section NA. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 07th May 2026.
CNR: WBCHCA0497202023
Next Hearing
11th October 2023
Filing Number
WPA/24261/2023
Filing Date
05-10-2023
Registration No
WPA/24176/2023
Registration Date
05-10-2023
Judge
HON'BLE JUSTICE SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL)
Coram
HON'BLE JUSTICE SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL)
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
GROUP A (WRIT MATTERS) ( 1 )
Sub-Category
BONUS/GRATUITY ( 5 )
Judicial Branch
MANDAMUS SECTION
Decision Date
07th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SK. YEASIN ALI DONA GHOSH
Respondent(s)
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE JUSTICE SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL)
NEW MOTION
HEARING (GROUP-III)
MOTION GR - III
HEARING (GROUP-III)
MOTION GR - III
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 11-10-2023 | NEW MOTION |
| 22-04-2026 | HEARING (GROUP-III) |
| 07-01-2026 | MOTION GR - III |
| 03-12-2025 | HEARING (GROUP-III) |
| 01-12-2025 | MOTION GR - III |
Orders
Summary The Calcutta High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Sk. Yeasin Ali, an ex-employee claiming additional gratuity for the lockout period (March 1989-November 1994). The court held that as a badli (temporary) worker during that period who did not actually work for 240+ days annually, the petitioner was not entitled to gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, despite the lockout being beyond his control. The court also rejected his claim for gratuity from 2012-2015 (post-superannuation re-employment) as he had not completed a fresh 5-year continuous service period required for renewed gratuity eligibility. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Calcutta High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Sk. Yeasin Ali, an ex-employee claiming additional gratuity for the lockout period (March 1989-November 1994). The court held that as a badli (temporary) worker during that period who did not actually work for 240+ days annually, the petitioner was not entitled to gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, despite the lockout being beyond his control. The court also rejected his claim for gratuity from 2012-2015 (post-superannuation re-employment) as he had not completed a fresh 5-year continuous service period required for renewed gratuity eligibility. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts