Allowed

Karnataka State Road v. the Assistant Labour Commissioner

Karnataka HC2 Mar 2023WP/14126/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed to quash orders denying additional gratuity based on extended tenure. Court held Service Register disproved earlier appointment date, allowing the petition and quashing impugned orders.

What did the court decide?

Applications under Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 stand rejected; impugned orders dated 04.03.2016 and 27.09.2017 are quashed.

Karnataka State Road Vs the Assistant… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - WP No. 14126 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 14126 OF 2018 (L-KSRTC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

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

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. RENUKA H. R., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER, AND THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY, UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, DIVISION-3, KARMEEKA BHAVAN, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 029.

¶13

THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER, AND CONTROLLING AUTHORITY, UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, DIVISIN 1, KARMEEKA BHAVAN,

¶14

¶15

WP No. 14126 of 2018

¶16

BANNERGHATAA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 029.

¶17

GOPALA S/O LATE PUTTAPPA, ADULT, R/O GOVINDAPPA COMPOUND, BANASHANKARI MAIN ROAD, TUMKURU - 572 103.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. BHOJEGOWDA T KOLLER.,AGA FOR R1 & R2, SRI. M.C. BASAVARAJU.,ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶20

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDERS PASSED DTD: 4.3.2016 [ANNEXURE-C] PASSED BY THE R-2. QUASH THE ORDER PASSED DTD: 27.9.2017 [ANNEXURE-E] PASSED BY THE R-1. GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER PENDING DISPOSAL OF THE W.P-1 STAY THE OPERATION AND EXECUTION OF THE ORDER DTD: 4.3.2016 PASSED [ANNEXURE-C] BY THE R-2 AND ALSO THE ORDER OF THE R-1 DTD: 27.9.2017 PASSED IN [ANNEXURE-E].

¶21

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

¶22

¶23

WP No. 14126 of 2018

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The respondent-workman, when working as Helper in the petitioner-Corporation retired from service on 17.05.2001 on attaining the age of superannuation, and a sum of Rs.9,34,385/- was paid towards gratuity by taking the total length of service rendered by the petitioner as 35 years 9 months 2 days i.e., from 06.07.1978 to 17.05.2001. Respondent No.3 filed an application before respondent No.2 claiming difference in gratuity. Respondent No.2 determined the gratuity by taking the service of the respondentworkman from 26.12.1972 till attaining the age of superannuation and directed the petitioner to pay the difference of gratuity of Rs.1,55,950/-. The challenge to the said order by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority was negatived. Hence, this petition.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶27

memo dated 18.02.1976 indicates that the respondent was included in the select list of Helpers-'B' and the said document does not in any way indicate that the petitioner was appointed as Helper with effect from 26.12.1972.

¶28

¶29

WP No. 14126 of 2018

¶30

Hence, she submits that impugned order is contrary to the materials on record.

¶31

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-workman submits that memo dated 18.02.1976 clearly indicates that the respondent was appointed as Helper-'B' in the petitioner-Corporation and the petitionerCorporation have not produced any material to substantiate that the respondent-workman was appointed with effect from 06.07.1978. Respondent No.2 has rightly passed the order and the same does not warrant interference.

¶32

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

¶33

Perusal of the memo dated 18.02.1976 issued by the Administrative Officer, KSRTC, Tumakuru, indicates that the respondent along with other candidates was selected for the post of Helper-'B' vide selection list dated 26.12.1972, and they were also included in the Badali list of Helper-'B' of the Depots as shown against their names. However, it

¶34

¶35

WP No. 14126 of 2018

¶36

does not indicate that respondent No.3 was appointed as Helper-'B' in the petitioner-Corporation to substantiate the claim that the respondent-workman joined services on 06.07.1978. The petitioner-Corporation has produced the Service Register of respondent No.3-workman which clearly indicates that respondent No.3 joined services of the petitioner-Corporation on 06.07.1978. Contrary to the entry in the Service Register and in the absence of any material that respondent No.3 joined the services on 26.12.1972, respondent Nos.1 and 2 committed an error in holding that respondent No.3 joined services on 26.12.1972. The same is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

i. Writ petition is allowed , impugned order dated 04.03.2016 passed by respondent No.2 at Annexure-C and impugned order dated 27.09.2017 passed by respondent No.1 at Annexure-E are hereby quashed and consequently, application filed under Section

¶39

¶40

WP No. 14126 of 2018

¶41

7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972

stands rejected.

Sd/JUDGE

SMJ

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43

Karnataka State Road v. the Assistant Labour Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka State Road 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. T. Ramakrishna Vs the State of Karnataka

Bangalore Electriciy Supply Company Ltd. Vs Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical

Sri.Prakash Ramachandra Sapkal Vs the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, (Kptcl)

Bata India Limited Vs President

Dr Shobha M v Vs the State of Karnataka

Sr Y.N. Srinivas Vs the Regional Transport Authority