Partly allowed

The Chief Traffic Manager v. Sri Sadiq Khan

Karnataka HC21 Mar 2023WP/10255/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka held that the gratuity calculation must be adjusted for the workman's lack of continuous 240-day service over the last five years. The court partially allowed the writ petition and modified orders to reduce the entitlement from 30 years to 27 years 6 months while retaining the 10% interest.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders were modified by holding the workman entitled to a gratuity difference of Rs.3,95,680 with 10% interest from 12.8.2014, deducting the amount already withdrawn.

The Chief Traffic Manager Vs Sri Sadiq Khan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 10255 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 10255 OF 2017 (L-KSRTC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE CHIEF TRAFFIC MANAGER B.M.T.C., CENTRAL OFFICES, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU- 560 027 HEREIN REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SANJEEV B.L., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SRI SADIQ KHAN

¶13

SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS

¶14

A) SMT. HASEENA

¶15

W/O LATE SADIQ KHAN

¶16

AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS

¶17

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶18

B) SMT. GOUSIA KHAN D/O LATE SADIQ KHAN AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

¶19

C) SRI SUHEL KHAN S/O LATE SADIQ KHAN AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

¶20

ALL ARE RESIDING AT 2ND WARD SOPPINAPETE, 'A' BLOCK, GUDIBANDE DISTRICT: CHIKKABALLAPURA-562 101.

¶21

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

¶22

¶23

WP No. 10255 of 2017

¶24

BANGALORE DIVISION-2, KARMIKA BHAVAN, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 029.

¶25

THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER

¶26

AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, BANGALORE REGION-1, KARMIKA BHAVAN, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 029.

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI. S.B. MUKKANNAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A-C); SRI BHOJEGOWDA T. KOLLER, AGA FOR R-2 AND R-3)

¶29

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 29.6.2015 PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, BANGALORE DIVISION-2, (R-2) AT ANNEXURE-A AND THE ORDER DATED 20.09.2016 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, BANGALORE REGION-1, BANGALORE (R-3) AT ANNEXURE-B.

¶30

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

¶31

ORDER

¶32

The first respondent when working as driver in the petitioner-Corporation voluntarily retired from service on 11.8.2012. The gratuity payable to the first respondent was determined at Rs.3,30,671/- by calculating as per the KSRTC Regulations.

¶33

The petitioner filed an application claiming difference in gratuity under Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The Controlling Authority passed an order

¶34

¶35

WP No. 10255 of 2017

¶36

directing the Corporation to pay a sum of Rs.4,74,680/- with interest at the rate of 10% p.a. from 13.9.2012 till the actual payment towards difference in gratuity amount. The appeal filed before the Appellate Authority by the Corporation against the said order was partly allowed. Hence, the present petition is filed.

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioner-Corporation submits that the first respondent had not continuously worked for 240 days for the period of five years, and the Controlling Authority ought to have deducted the said period for the purpose of determining the gratuity amount. He further submits that the interest of 10% awarded on the difference in gratuity amount is exorbitant.

¶38

On the other hand, learned counsel for the first respondent-workman submits that the notification issued under the Act provides for awarding interest @ of 10% p.a., and the interest awarded is in conformity with the provision of the Act.

¶39

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶40

The Controlling Authority has taken active service of the first respondent-workman at 30 years 7 months. However, the first respondent-workman had not continuously worked for 240 days in a year from 2010-2011-2012 i.e., for the period of 3 years. Hence, the difference of gratuity amount payable requires to be determined by taking active service of the first respondent-workman at 27 years 6 months. To this extent, the

¶41

¶42

WP No. 10255 of 2017

¶43

impugned order passed by the controlling authority requires to be modified.

¶44

Accordingly, I pass the following

¶45

ORDER

¶46

i) The writ petition is allowed in part.

¶47

ii) The impugned order dated 29.06.2015 passed by the second respondent at Annexure-A and impugned order dated 20.09.2016 passed by the third respondent at AnnexureB are hereby modified by holding that the workman is entitled for difference in gratuity amount for a sum of Rs.3,95,680/with interest at 10% p.a. from 12.8.2014 till the actual deposit.

¶48

It is submitted that the first respondent-workman has withdrawn 50% of the amount of Rs.2,37,340/-.

¶49

The Controlling Authority to release the balance amount in favour of the first respondent-workman after deducting a sum of Rs.2,37,340/- which is already paid during pending disposal of this petition.

¶50

The balance amount remaining after releasing balance amount to workman to be released in favour of the petitionerCorporation.

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

The Chief Traffic Manager v. Sri Sadiq Khan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Chief Traffic Manager v. Sri Sadiq Khan

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

The Management of Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.M.S.Rajeshwari Vs State of Karnataka

Bangalore Metropolitan Vs Govindaiah G

Sri. B Subramanya Swamy Vs the Provident Fund Commissioner

Jagannath B J Vs the Additional Chief Secretary

V Raman Vs State of Karnataka