Partly allowed

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. the Deputy Labour Commissioner

Karnataka HC19 Oct 2020WP/47943/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Writ Petitioner Corporation challenged orders determining gratuity for a workman. The Court found an error in the computation of service period and upheld tax deductions, setting aside the erroneous gratuity determination while leaving most findings undisturbed.

What did the court decide?

The order of the Controlling Authority determining gratuity for 29 years 1 month and declaring Rs.17,221 income tax deduction is set aside; other findings remain undisturbed.

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.47943/2015 (L – KSRTC)

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, BANGALORE CENTRAL DIVISION, BENGALURU BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER.

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

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

¶11

AND

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

¶15

SANAULLAKHAN S/O IMAM KHAN, ADULT, R/O UPPARAHALLI, URDU SCHOOL, MAIN ROAD, 7^TH CROSS, DADA MANZIL, TUMAKURU 572 212.

¶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 ORDERS PASSED IN ANNX-B DATED 10.3.2014 PASSED BY THE R-1 ETC.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the

¶23

parties.

¶24

The petitioner Corporation has called in

¶25

question the order of the 2^nd respondent-controlling

¶26

¶27

authority dated 18.2.2010, in terms of Annexure-A, by which the gratuity was determined to be payable to the respondent workman at Rs.3,63,881/-. The controlling authority noticing the date of retirement of the workman to be 29.2.2008 held that the workman

¶28

has rendered about 28 years 11 months and 12 days of service and while computing the same, the controlling authority has computed about 29 years 11 months of service taking the date of superannuation of the workman to be 29.2.2009 as against 29.2.2008, which the authority itself records in its order.

¶29

There is an error apparent on the face of the

¶30

record that the workman has retired on 29.2.2009 and not on 28.2.2008, the controlling authority has erred in determining the gratuity for 29 years 1 month as against 28 years 1 month.

¶31

¶32

The other ground is with regard to deduction of income tax on the gratuity payable to the petitioner which was beyond Rs.3,50,000/-. The workman is entitled to gratuity of Rs.3,79,911- as against Rs.3,93,439/- determined by the appellate authority. Since this amount exceeds Rs.3,50,000/- which attracts income tax, the Corporation had deducted Rs.17,221 towards income tax to be payable by the Corporation which cannot be found fault with.

¶33

For the aforesaid reasons, the order of the Controlling Authority is set aside insofar as it determines gratuity for a period of 29 years 1 month as against 28 years 1 month and insofar as it declares deduction of Rs.17,221/- towards income tax. Rest of the findings of the authority are left undisturbed.

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

Cs CT:MJ

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. the Deputy Labour Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation 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

Ramanna Vs State of Karnataka

Mr v Jagannatha Vs Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board

Bangalore Metropolitan Vs the Deputy Labour Commissioner

The Taluk Social Welfare Vs G.M Suresh

T M Pemmaiah Vs Canara Bank

H.M. Narayana Vs M/S Karnataka Food and Civil