Partly allowed

Bangalore Metropolitan v. the Deputy Labour Commissioner

Karnataka HC16 Oct 2020WP/45794/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed writ petition in part, setting aside orders of Controlling and Appellate Authorities. High Court determined the workman is entitled to a reduced gratuity difference of Rs. 19,980/- after deducting loans and advances availed from total statutory entitlement.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed in part; orders of Controlling and Appellate Authorities set aside; workman entitled to Rs. 19,980/- gratuity difference with interest; corporation directed to comply within six

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 16^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.45794/2015 (L - KSRTC)

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H.ROAD, BENGALURU 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, REGION-2, ‘KARMIKA BHAVANA’, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 029.

¶13

THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, DIVISION-1, ‘KARMIKA BHAVANA’, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 029.

¶14

¶15

SAMIULLA KHAN S/O LATE KHADER KHAN, ADULT, NO.55/1, 12^TH CROSS, BALESETTY COMPOUND, PADARAYANAPURA, MYSURU ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 026.

¶16

... RESPONDENTS

¶17

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

¶18

SRI ROOPESH KUMAR N.R., ADVOCATE FOR R3 (ABSENT))

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF THE R-2 DATED 30.7.2012 VIDE ANNEX-J ETC.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

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.1,41,388/-.

¶23

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

The workman joined the services of the Corporation as a driver on 03.12.1976 and retired on seeking voluntary retirement on 21.08.2005. After his retirement the workman was paid gratuity that he was entitled to according to the Corporation.

¶27

In the year 2010, the workman filed an application before the Controlling Authority seeking difference in gratuity. The Controlling Authority by his order dated 30.07.2012 determined the difference in gratuity payable to the workman at Rs.1,41,388/- along with 10% interest from 22.09.2005 till the date of payment.

¶28

The Corporation having challenged the same

¶29

before the Appellate Authority, the Appellate Authority by

¶30

¶31

its order dated 24.02.2015 affirmed the order of the Controlling Authority. It is the aforesaid orders that are challenged in this writ petition.

¶32

Heard Smt.H.R.Renuka, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri.R.Srinivasa Gowda, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Learned counsel for workman has remained absent throughout.

¶33

Learned counsel for the Corporation would submit that the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority have grossly erred in determining the payment of gratuity at Rs.1,41,388/-, as the workman was paid all the entitled gratuity when he had retired and at best the difference payable after reduction of loan and liabilities of the workman was Rs.19,980/- as he had availed various loans.

¶34

The admitted facts are, the workman joined the service on 03.12.1976 and retired on 21.08.2005 and had

¶35

¶36

rendered active service of 27 years 8 months and 18 days and was paid gratuity after his retirement.

¶37

The Controlling Authority though has determined

¶38

the difference in gratuity payable to the workman at Rs.1,41,388/-, the workman had availed various loans in

¶39

the Corporation which are as follows:

¶40

(i) Loan from BMTC Co-operative Society Rs. 11,285/(ii) Loan from BMTC Consumer Society Rs. 20,000/(iii) Marriage Advance Rs. 19,005/(iv) Syndicate Bank TVS loan Rs. 45,000/(v) Uco Bank BSK Branch Rs. 20,400/(vi) URD Amount Rs. 5,718/__________

¶41

Total: Rs.1,21,408/__________

¶42

Hence, the respondent-workman would be entitled to a remainder of the amount after deduction of the aforesaid advances that are availed by the employee, which on an undertaking given by the employee was deductible from gratuity. Therefore, the workman would be entitled to Rs.19,980/- which is the remainder of the amount out of Rs.1,41,388/- determined by the Controlling

¶43

¶44

Authority along with interest at 10% per annum from the

¶45

date of filing of the petition by the workman on 08.04.2010 till the deposit is made by the Corporation before the Appellate Authority i.e., on 08.09.2012. Hence, the following:

¶46

ORDER

¶47

(i) Writ petition is allowed in part.

¶48

(ii) The order of the Controlling Authority bearing No.ALCB-1/PGA/CR/05/2010-11

¶49

dated 30.07.2012 and the order of the Appellate Authority bearing No.DLCB2/PGA/CR/25/2014 dated 24.02.2015 are set aside.

¶50

(iii) The workman is entitled to difference in gratuity of Rs.19,980/- along with interest at 10% per annum from the date of filing of the petition by the workman on 08.04.2010 till the date of deposit i.e., 08.09.2012.

¶51

¶52

(iv) The aforesaid order shall be complied with by the Corporation within six months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶53

Sd/JUDGE

¶54

bkp 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Central Board of Trustees, Epf Vs M/S. Venkateswara Packagings

Smt Jayalakshmamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Annegowda Vs State of Karnataka

Ramanna Vs State of Karnataka

Mr v Jagannatha Vs Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board

Manjunatha N Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.