Partly allowed

Bangalore Metropolitan v. the Deputy Labour Commissioner

Karnataka HC8 Oct 2020WP/19464/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed the writ petition in part. While affirming the authorities' determination of the gratuity difference, it directed the Corporation to seek a refund of the income tax deducted, as the amount was below the taxable limit.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is granted leave to seek refund of the Income Tax deducted from the gratuity payable to the workman.

Bangalore Metropolitan Vs the Deputy… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 08^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.19464/2015 (L - KSRTC)

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027. BY ITS CHIEF TRAFFIC MANAGER, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

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

¶10

AND

¶11

THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT REGION 2, KARMEEKA BHAWAN BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 029.

¶12

THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND CONTROLLING AUTHROITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, DIVISION 1, KARMEEKA BHAWAN,

¶13

¶14

BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 029.

¶15

T.RAMU S/O THIMMAIAH, ADULT, R/O NO.257, OMSHAKTI TEMPLE ROAD, II CROSS, SANJEEVINI NAGAR, II STAGE, HEGANNAHALLI CROSS, BENGALURU – 560 091.

¶16

... RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI VENKAT SATYANARAYAN A., HCGP FOR R1 AND R2 (VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING))

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER MADE DT.13.12.2010 PASSED BY THE R-2 (ANNX-C) ETC.

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Aggrieved by the order dated 13.12.2010

¶22

(Annexure ‘C’) passed by the Controlling Authority and

¶23

the order dated 27.11.2014 (Annexure ‘D’) passed by

¶24

the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity

¶25

Act, 1972, the petitioner – Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation’ for short) is before this Court challenging

¶26

¶27

the directions of the Authorities to pay of Rs.37,109/being the difference in gratuity to the third respondent, with interest at the rate of 10% p.a. from 03.03.2006.

¶28

The parties will be referred to as the Corporation and the Workman for the sake of convenience.

¶29

The Workman was appointed as a Conductor on 03.11.1980 and he retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.01.2006. The total service of

¶30

the Workman rendered for the payment of gratuity was 25 years 5 months. The Workman on his retirement a sum of Rs.95,504/- was paid as gratuity after deducting the loans availed by him. Later, the Workman filed an application before the Controlling Authority claiming difference in gratuity and the Controlling Authority by his order dated 13.12.2010

¶31

¶32

determined the difference in gratuity payable to the Workman at Rs.37,109/-. Against this order, an appeal was filed by the Corporation, which also came to be dismissed on 27.11.2014. Challenging both the orders, the petitioner – Corporation is before this Court.

¶33

Heard Smt. H. Renuka, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Venkat Satyanarayan A., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and perused the material on records.

¶34

Though the learned counsel for the

¶35

Corporation vehemently contends that the Authorities have erred in determining the difference in gratuity at Rs.37,109/-, I do not find any error committed by the Authorities in determination of difference in gratuity

¶36

¶37

except the addition of Income Tax in the orders impugned.

¶38

Hence, the following order:

¶39

a. The writ petition is allowed in part.

¶40

b. The findings of the Control Authority and the Appellate Authority are affirmed.

¶41

c. The Corporation is granted to seek refund of the Income Tax that is deducted from out the gratuity payable to the Workman as the Income Tax amount was below the taxable ceiling limit.

Ordered accordingly.

Sd/JUDGE

nvj

CT:MJ

Bangalore Metropolitan v. the Deputy Labour Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bangalore Metropolitan 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

Karnataka State Road Vs the Deputy Labour Commissioner

Smt Shifa Mariyam Vs M/S Karnataka Power Transmission

Smt Vijaya Vs State of Karnataka

Sri H Ravi Vs the State of Karnataka

Prakash Rao P Yan Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr. K B Eshwara Vs State of Karnataka