Dismissed

The Karnataka State Road v. R Chandrashekar

Karnataka HC3 Sept 2022WP/9091/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Workman challenged deduction of gratuity for alleged break service. Court held employer must prove break via Section 2A order. Petition dismissed. Workman directed to receive deposited gratuity and interest.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; Controlling Authority directed to release deposited gratuity within three weeks; Petitioner directed to pay interest within four weeks.

The Karnataka State Road Vs R Chandrashekar — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 9091 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 9091 OF 2021 (L-PG)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION BENGALURU CENTRAL DIVISION BY IT’S CHIEF LAW OFFICER K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU-560027

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.ANEPPANAVAR RAMESH BASETTEPPA., ADV.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by POORNIMA SHIVANNA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

R.CHANDRASHEKAR S/O V.C.RANGAIAH R/AT SORAWANHALLI MAYASANDRA, T.B. HOBLI TURUVEKERE TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572221

¶14

THE LABOUR OFFICER & CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT 1972, LO-2, BENGALURU-560001

¶15

ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT 1972,

¶16

¶17

WP No. 9091 of 2021

¶18

BENGALURU DIVISION-2 BENGALURU-560001

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI.L.SHEKAR., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI.Y.D.HARSHA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3.)

¶21

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 24.02.2020 PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972, BENGALURU DIVISION-2, BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-G CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED 30.07.2018 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, SUB-DIVISION-5, BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-E.

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioner-Road Transport Corporation is before

¶25

this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶26

“i) A writ in the nature of certiorari or order or direction to quash the impugned order dated 24.02.2020 in No.Sa Ka Ben-2/APGA/CR-30/2018-19 passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner & Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Bengaluru Division-2, Bengaluru at Annexure-G, confirming the order dated 30.07.2018 in No.Ka Ah Ben-5/PGA/CR09/2016-17 passed by respondent No.2i.e., Labour Officer & Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, Sub-Division-5, Bengaluru at Annexure-E;

¶27

ii) Issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction as deemed fit, under the facts and circumstances of the above case, in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶28

¶29

WP No. 9091 of 2021

¶30

The respondent No.1 has joined the services of petitioner-Road Transport Corporation as Security Guard with effect from 28.08.1972 and retired from

¶31

services on 31.05.2022. The petitioner-Road Transport Corporation considering that the active service period of 36 years 11 months and 29 days after excluding break-in service period of 2 years 9 months 29 days, calculated the gratuity amount payable at Rs.8,72,378/- and made payment thereof on 16.04.2013.

¶32

Aggrieved by the same, the respondent-workman filed an application before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short) on 12.11.2014 stating that the workman was entitled for gratuity for the entire services of 39 years 9 months 3 days. The same came to be objected to by the Road Transport Corporation, as also for interest on the said delayed

¶33

¶34

WP No. 9091 of 2021

¶35

payment. The respondent filed its objections stating that the calculation made is proper and correct and the Corporation was entitled to deduct the amounts

¶36

due as regards the break period and as such sought for dismissal of the application. The Controlling Authority vide its order dated 30.07.2018, allowed the application and directed the Road Transport Corporation to make payment of balance amount within a period of 30 days along with interest.

¶37

Aggrieved by the same, the Road Transport Corporation has filed appeal under Section 7[7] of the Act before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority vide order dated 24.02.2020, dismissed the appeal on the ground that there being no order passed under Section 2A of the Act, the gratuity for the alleged break period could not have been withheld by the Road Transport Corporation and as such after upholding the order passed by the

¶38

¶39

WP No. 9091 of 2021

¶40

Controlling Authority, directed the Road Transport Corporation to make payment of the due amounts.

¶41

It is aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-Road Transport Corporation is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.

¶42

Sri.Aneppanavar Ramesh Basetteppa, learned counsel for the petitioner-Road Transport Corporation would submit that the Road Transport Corporation has produced details of the break-in service in terms of Ex.R2 which has not been taken into consideration. If the same has been taken into consideration, the break-in service being established the calculation of the petitioner-Road Transport Corporation ought to have been held to be proper and correct and as such he submits that the finding of the Controlling Authority is required to be set aside and the petition allowed.

¶43

¶44

WP No. 9091 of 2021

¶45

Per contra, learned counsel Sri.L.Shekar appearing for the respondent No.1 – workman would submit that what has been produced at Ex.R2 is only details of the alleged break-in service. There is no order passed in terms of Section 2A of the Act disentitling the workman from gratuity for the alleged period of break and as such he submits that the Controlling Authority has considered the matter properly and the order passed is proper and correct.

¶46

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the papers.

¶47

The short question in the present matter is to if gratuity amount due could be denied on the allegation of break-in service and/or no continuation of service, without an order being passed under Section 2A of the Act?

¶48

The said question is no longer res-integra in view of the decision of this Court in the case of BANGALORE

¶49

¶50

WP No. 9091 of 2021

¶51

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION

¶52

V/S. THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE

¶53

PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT AND OTHERS [ILR

¶54

2009 KARNATAKA 1166] , wherein this Court has categorically held that for the employer to claim deduction of gratuity on account of break in service, an order under Section 2A of the Act was required to

¶55

be passed and in the absence thereof, no such deduction could be claimed. The said finding would be clearly applicable to the present facts also, since there is no order which has been produced under Section 2A of the Act.

¶56

In view of the above, I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority. As such, I pass the following:

¶57

ORDER

¶58

i) The writ petition stands dismissed.

¶59

¶60

WP No. 9091 of 2021

¶61

ii) The Controlling Authority is directed to release the entire deposited amount in favour of the workman within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶62

iii) The petitioner-Road Transport Corporation is directed to make payment of interest within a period of four weeks from today.

¶63

iv) Though this Court could have imposed cost in the above matter, due to just dues of the workman has been denied, this Court refrains from doing so.

¶64

Sd/JUDGE

¶65

¶66

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16

The Karnataka State Road v. R Chandrashekar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Karnataka State Road v. R Chandrashekar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Raghavendra Enterprises Vs M/S Mysore Stoneware Pipes and Potteries

H Manjunath Vs Mrs R Chandana

Mrs R M Sathya Prema Devi Vs R Sivakumar

D K Malleshappa Vs the Divisional Controller

Nirmala @ Basalingavva Vs the Managing Director

N. Nagaraj Vs the Divisional Controller