Allowed

The Karnataka Bank Limited, v. Sri S M Terdal

Karnataka HC1 Oct 2012WP/11823/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition by the Karnataka Bank questioned an industrial tribunal order awarding workmen gratuity. The High Court allowed the petition, quashing the dispute over interest calculation and directing the workmen to approach the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions allowed; impugned order modified to leave dispute on interest calculation to the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

The Karnataka Bank Limited, Vs Sri S M… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2012

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH B. ADI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.11823/2011 & WRIT PETITION NOS.12113-12117/2011(L-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

THE KARNATAKA BANK LIMITED, HEAD OFFICE, MAHAVEER CIRCLE, KANKANADY, MANGALORE. REP. BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, SRI. S. RAMACHANDRA BHAT.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

( BY SRI.SOMASHEKAR, ADV. FOR M/S S N MURTHY ASSOCIATES, ADVS., )

¶11

AND :

¶12

1 SRI S M TERDAL, (SHIVAPUTRAYYA MAHALINGAYYA TERDAL) S/O SRI. MAHALINGAYYA TERDAL, AGED 58 YEARS, H.NO. 1139, BARAGI ONI, MAHALINGAPUR – 587 312 TAL: MUDHOL, BAGALKOT DISTRICT.

¶13

2 SRI. T.R. NARAYANAPPA, S/O SRI. RANGAIAH, AGED 79 YEARS, MAGGADA BEEDHI, M.G. ROAD, TARIKERE – 577 228, DISTRICT: CHIKMAGALUR

¶14

¶15

3 SRI. MANJUNATH, S/O LATE SRI. A. SADASHIVAPPA, AGED 51 YEARS, D.NO. 1456, PETHE ROAD, MALEBENNUR, TALUK HARIHAR, DISTRICT DAVANAGERE.

¶16

4 SMT. VISHALA S.N. RAO, W/O LATE P. SOORYANARAYANA RAO, AGED 59 YEARS, NAVADURGA KALBHAVI LANE, KOTTARA, MANGALORE- 575 006.

¶17

5 SMT. PUSHPA M KULKARNI, W/O LATE SRI. MALHAR RAO.C KULKARNI, AGED 69 YEARS, VENKATESWARA TEMPLE, AGRAHARA, HAVERI – 581 110

¶18

6 SRI. G. RANGANATHAN, S/O SRI. S. GOVINDARAJ, NO.4362, II MAIN, PARAMAHAMSA ROAD, YADAVAGIRI, MYSORE- 570 020. ...RESPONDENTS

¶19

( BY SMT. PADMAVATHI S. SAVANUR, ADV., FOR R2, R3 & R5; SMT. M.K.DEVAKI, ADV. FOR R6; R1- SERVED; NOTICE TO R4 IS HELD SUFFICIENT )

¶20

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED COMMON ORDER DTD 8.11.10 IN MISC.09/2005, 12/2005, 39/2005, 51/2005, 02/2006 AND 16/2006 PASSED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE AT ANNEX-F TO THIS PETITION AND PASS SUCH OTHER APPROPRIATE ORDER

¶21

¶22

AS DEEMED FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE & ETC.,

¶23

THESE PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

These writ petitions are by the Bank questioning the common order passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Bangalore, in Misc. Nos.9/2005, 12/2005, 39/2005, 51/2005, 2/2006 and 16/2006 dated 08.11.2010 produced at Annexure F.

¶26

The respondents – workmen have filed claim petition under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) seeking payment of gratuity based on the award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad, in I.D. No.14/1980 dated 22.12.1988.

¶27

The facts, which are not in dispute are that:

¶28

A dispute was raised by the pigmy collectors against

¶29

¶30

various Banks before the Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad, claiming for absorption as regular employees, payment of salaries, payment of gratuity and other service benefits. It is also not in dispute that, the Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad, though did not grant relief of absorption of pigmy collectors as regular employees, has ordered for grant of gratuity by calculating the same at the rate of 15 days wages for every completed year of service.

¶31

Based on the same, the respondents also filed a claim petition under Section 33 C(2) of the Act. No doubt, if any amount is due from the employer, the workman can make a claim by filing a petition under Section 33C(2) of the Act for the said amount. In this case, the respondents – workmen have become entitled for gratuity to be calculated at the rate of 15 days wages for every completed year of service. This aspect of the matter is also not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶32

¶33

The grievance of the petitioner is that, the

¶34

petitioner – Bank is not liable to pay interest from the date of the respondents ceasing to be pigmy collectors, but are liable to pay interest only from the date of the claim petition.

¶35

However, the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, by the impugned order, has held that, the respondents – workmen are entitled for payment of interest from the date of their ceasing to be pigmy collectors and not from the date of the claim petition.

¶36

Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, provides for determination of the amount of gratuity. Any person, who claims to be eligible for payment of gratuity under the Act, he or any person authorised by him, may make an application in writing, and send the said written application to the employer. In case the employer fails to make the payment of gratuity, he may file a claim petition before the Controller under the Payment of Gratuity Act. In such case, the Controller, on enquiry would determine the

¶37

¶38

gratuity and also the interest payable thereon.

¶39

As far as the respondents` entitlement to gratuity is concerned, the same is not disputed. But, as far as payment of interest is concerned, the date of respondents ceasing to be pigmy collectors is disputed. Now, if there is a dispute as to the entitlement of interest from the date of the respondents ceasing to be pigmy collectors, in such case, the controlling authority, who is the authority to decide the entitlement of the employees can decide the said issue. When separate statutory forum is created for determination of gratuity, the claim petition for payment of gratuity under Section 33C(2) of the Act is not maintainable.

¶40

In so far as calculation of interest on gratuity, which is disputed by the petitioner is concerned, the respondents may approach the Controlling Authority for adjudication under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act.

¶41

¶42

Accordingly, writ petitions are allowed. The impugned order stands modified, except the disputed interest on the gratuity of the respondents, in all other respects, the respondents are entitled for the payment of gratuity. In so far as disputed interest is concerned, the respondents are at liberty to approach the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act.

¶43

SD/JUDGE

¶44

sma

The Karnataka Bank Limited, v. Sri S M Terdal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Karnataka Bank Limited, v. Sri S M Terdal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Shankare Gowda S/O Budi Gowda Vs the State of Karnataka

V B Mallikeshi S/O Channappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Srinivas P Vs Managing Director the Horticulture Producers Co. Op

M/S.Vxl Instruments Ltd. Vs Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

Deputy Conservator of Forests Vs Dundaiah S/O Chikkamadegowda

The Deputy Conservator of Vs Sri Chinnaiah