Partly allowed

Karnataka State Road v. the Deputy Labour Commissioner

Karnataka HC7 Oct 2020WP/19196/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation challenged gratuity orders awarding a sum of Rs. 1,22,825/- to a workman. The court modified the orders, holding the workman entitled to gratuity only from 29.03.1974 for the period up to dismissal, excluding the gap where he performed no duties. It directed payment of the difference w

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed in part; workman entitled to difference in gratuity from 29.03.1974 to 17.05.2001 with interest at 10% per annum.

Karnataka State Road Vs the Deputy Labour… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 07^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.19196/2015 (L – KSRTC)

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CHIKKAMAGALURU DIVISION, CHIKkAMAGALURU BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER.

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SMT.H.R.RENUKA, ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING))

¶11

AND

¶12

THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY, UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, HASSAN REGION, HASSAN – 573 201.

¶13

THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND CONTROLLING AUTHORITY, UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, CHIKKAMAGALURU DIVISION, CHIKKAMAGALURU – 577 101.

¶14

A.C.JAGADISH S/O CHANNABASAVAIAH

¶15

¶16

HOSAPET, AREHALLI POST, BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 115.

¶17

... RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI R.SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2 (PHYSICAL HEARING);

¶19

SRI.N.R.RAVIKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3 (PHYSICAL HERING)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDERS MADE IN NOS.PGA/SR/27/09-10 DT. 31.7.2013 (ANNX-A) PASSED BY THE R-2 AND NO.DLCH/PGA/SR/22/2013-14 DT. 29.3.2014 (ANNX-B) PASSED BY THE R-1.

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioner in this writ petition has called in question both the orders of the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act determining the difference in gratuity payable to respondent No.3 at Rs.1,22,825/-.

¶24

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as ‘the Corporation’ and ‘the Workman’.

¶25

¶26

Brief facts of the case leading to filing of the writ petition are that:

¶27

The workman joined the services of the Corporation on 17.03.1978 as a Conductor. He was dismissed from service by a measure of penalty on 17.05.2001. On such dismissal whatever the workman was entitled to, was paid. The workman after about 8 years of his dismissal, filed an application before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity act on 04.05.2009 claiming difference in gratuity. The Controlling Authority by his order dated 31.07.2013 directed the Corporation to pay the difference in gratuity of Rs.47,033/- which was after deduction of 75,792/- from the total gratuity payable determined at Rs.1,22,825/- along with interest at Rs.47,033/-. In all, the Controlling Authority directed payment of Rs.94,066/to the workman.

¶28

The Corporation filed an appeal against the aforesaid order of the Controlling Authority which also came to be dismissed by its order dated 29.03.2014. It is

¶29

¶30

the aforesaid orders that are called in question by the Corporation.

¶31

Heard Smt.H.R.Renuka, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri.R.Srinivasa Gowda, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri.N.R.Ravikumar, learned counsel for respondent No.3.

¶32

The learned counsel appearing for petitioner would contend that the workman was not entitled for the aforesaid determination of gratuity from the year 1971-78, but would be entitled to from 1975-78. But the Controlling Authority has taken his service at 29 years including the period between 1971-75 during which period the workman did not work as there was break in service for a period of 4 years and 10 months.

¶33

On the other hand, learned counsel for the workman would support and justify the order passed by the Controlling Authority and would submit that there is no

¶34

¶35

warrant for interference as payment of gratuity is a beneficial legislation.

¶36

The facts are not in dispute. The workman joined the service of the Corporation on 17.03.1978 and was dismissed from service on 17.05.2001. The Controlling Authority has taken into consideration the service rendered by the workman from 20.10.1971 to 17.05.2001 including service rendered from 20.10.1971 to 17.03.1978 totaling 29 years. It is also not in dispute that the workman was appointed as badli conductor on 20.10.1971 in terms of Ex.R5 the service register of the workman, the Corporation has by order dated 16.06.1972 took a decision not to assign work to any of the badli conductors. It is long after this, again the workman was taken back as badli conductor on 27.03.1974. Thus, the workman did not discharge any duty in order to claim gratuity from 16.06.1972, the date on which the Corporation took a decision not to assign any work to badli conductors up to 29.03.1974 i.e., the date on which the workman reported back to duties as badli

¶37

¶38

conductor in terms of an order of the Corporation dated 27.03.1974. Thus, the order of the Controlling Authority determining the gratuity including the aforesaid period will have to be eschewed.

¶39

Though the learned counsel for the Corporation would contend that the workman is not entitled to gratuity from 20.10.1971 to 17.03.1978, there is no record to show that the workman was not entitled to gratuity from 29.03.1974. Hence, the order of the Controlling Authority determining gratuity from 20.10.1971 till the date of his dismissal i.e., 17.05.2001 is modified with a direction that the workman will be entitled to difference in gratuity from 29.03.1974 to 17.03.1978 i.e., the date on which he was regularly appointed as a conductor. The determination of the Controlling Authority will have to be modified to the aforesaid extent.

¶40

Writ petition is allowed in part. The workman is held entitled to difference in gratuity from 29.03.1974 to 17.05.2001 and not from 20.10.1971 to 17.05.2001, along

¶41

¶42

with interest at 10% per annum from the date of filing of the application before the Controlling Authority up to the date of deposit by the Corporation before the Appellate Authority.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

bkp CT:MJ

Karnataka State Road v. the Deputy Labour Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka State Road v. the Deputy Labour Commissioner

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

Smt Puttamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Venkataramanappa Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (Bbmp)

Sri. Halabasappa. G. M. Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Shifa Mariyam Vs M/S Karnataka Power Transmission

Smt Vijaya Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Mohammed Tahir Vs the State of Karnataka