Partly allowed

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. the Assistant Labour Commissioner

Karnataka HC14 Mar 2023WP/11785/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed the writ petition in part, modifying labor commissioner orders regarding gratuity calculations. The court directed the corporation to pay a specific difference in gratuity with interest for a workman whose service breaks exceeded statutory limits without a formal Section 2(A) determination by the employer.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to pay Rs.81,375 with interest at 10% p.a. from 04.01.2014; impugned orders modified to reflect active service as 26 years.

Karnataka State Road Transport… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 11785 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 11785 OF 2019 (L-KSRTC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

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

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. RENUKA H R.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY, UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT DIVISION-1, KARMEEKA BHAVAN, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE 560029

¶13

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND CONTROLLING AUTHORITY, UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT DIVISION13, KARMEEKA BHAVAN, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE 560029

¶15

N T MANJEGOWDA, S/O. THIMMEGOWDA, ADULT, R/O. A NAGATHIHALLI VILLAGE, ALISANDRA POST, NAGAMANGALA POST, MANDYA DISTRICT 571 401

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. GA SD.,ADVOCATE)

¶18

THIS WP FILED PRAYING TO-QUASH THE ORDERS PASSED DATED 19.6.2015 (ANNEXURE-B) PASSED BY THE R- 2;QUASH THE ORDER PASSED DATED 20.11.2014 (ANNEXUREC) PASSED BY THE R-1.

¶19

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

¶21

WP No. 11785 of 2019

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The third respondent when working as Conductor in the petitioner-Corporation retired voluntarily from the service on health grounds. The Petitioner-Corporation determined the gratuity payable at Rs.1,30,200/- by taking active service of the workman as 16 years 3 months on date. The third respondent filed an application before the first respondent claiming difference in gratuity. The second respondent passed the impugned order directing the petitioner-Corporation to pay difference in gratuity amount Rs.1,38,338/- stating that the petitioner-Corporation has not passed an order under Section 2(A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act treating the period as not a continuous service. Hence, this petition.

¶24

Learned counsel for the Petitioner-Corporation submits that the details of the break in services at Annexure-A indicates that the workman has not worked for 240 days continuously in a year for a period of 15 years. Hence, she submits that the impugned order passed by the second respondent requires to be modified by treating the active service rendered by the workman as 26 years.

¶25

Respondent No.3 though served with notice has not appeared in person or through his counsel.

¶26

Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.

¶27

The details of break in service at Annexure-A indicates that the workman has not worked for more than 240 days in a year for a period of 7 years, and for a period of 4

¶28

¶29

WP No. 11785 of 2019

¶30

years, he has not worked at all, and for the remaining 3 years, the workman has not worked for more than 30-40 days. Section 2(A) of the Act 1972 specifies that the employee is entitled for payment of gratuity for the period in which the workman has not worked for more than 240 days. Though no order is passed under Section 2(A) treating the period as not a continuous service, the record discloses that the workman has not worked at all for a period of 4 years, and for 3 years, he has not worked for more than 30 to 40 days. Hence, the workman is entitled for payment of gratuity by taking the active service as 26 years instead of 33 years. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶31

ORDER

¶32

i. Writ petition is allowed in part.

¶33

ii. The impugned order dated 19.06.2015 passed by respondent No.2 at Annexure-B and also the orders dated 20.11.2017, 02.05.2018 passed by respondent No.1 at Annexures-C and D are hereby modified.

¶34

iii. The petitioner-Corporation is directed to pay a sum of Rs.81,375/- with interest at 10% p.a. from 04.01.2014 till deposit towards difference in gratuity payable to the workman.

¶35

iv. The respondent-Workman is directed to withdraw the said amount which is in deposit before respondent No.2 and the balance amount to be released in favour of the petitionerCorporation.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

RKA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. the Assistant Labour Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. the Assistant 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

Sri K N Nagaraj Vs Sri S Padhmanabhan

Wonderla Karmika Sangha Vs the Management

Sri G Nagaraja Vs the Divisional Controller

Manjunath Vs the Divisional Controller

The Divisional Controller Vs Sri R H Siddammanavar

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri T C Venkatagiriyappa