Partly allowed

Bangalore Metropolitan v. the Deputy Labour Commissisoner

Karnataka HC12 Dec 2023WP/18192/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court interpreted the Payment of Gratuity Act, obliging the Corporation to deduct prior loans from the gratuity amount. The petition was partly allowed, and the authorities were directed to pay the corrected difference.

What did the court decide?

Respondent directed to receive Rs. 22,635 with 10% interest from 20.09.2006 to 04.02.2010 after deducting loan amounts.

Bangalore Metropolitan Vs the Deputy… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:45037 WP No. 18192 of 2013

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO.18192 OF 2013 (L-KSRTC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 027. BY ITS CHIEF TRAFFIC MANAGER, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

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

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSISONER AND THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY, UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, REGION-2, KARMEEKA BHAWAN, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 029.

¶12

Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND CONTROLLING AUTHORITY, UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, DIVISION-4, KARMEEKA BHAWAN, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 029.

¶14

K.B.NAGARAJ

¶15

AGED: MAJOR, S/O LATE BHIMACHARI, PRASANNA RAGHAVENDRASWAMY MATHA, AGRAHARA, MULABAGILU, KOLAR DISTRICT.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SMT. V.SPOORTHI., HCGP FOR R1 AND R2; NOTICE TO R3 -HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DATED:04.12.2023)

¶18

¶19

NC: 2023:KHC:45037 WP No. 18192 of 2013

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Smt.H.R.Renuka., learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Spoorthi.V., learned HCGP for respondents 1 & 2 have appeared in person.

¶24

Emergent notice to the third respondent was ordered on 06.09.2013. A perusal of the daily order sheet depicts that the notice to the third respondent was taken out by way of substituted service through paper publication in "Samyuktha Karnataka" daily newspaper on 22.10.2023 and the same was held sufficient vide order dated:04.12.2023. The third respondent has neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as party in person. Hence, this Court proceeds to pass orders on the merits of the case.

¶25

3. The brief facts are these:

¶26

The workman - K.B.Nagaraj was appointed as a Helper-B in the establishment of the Corporation with effect from

¶27

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:45037 WP No. 18192 of 2013

¶28

24.11.1971. He attained the age of superannuation on 31.12.2003. After a lapse of almost three years, the workman filed an application before the Controlling Authority claiming difference in gratuity on 20.09.2006. The Controlling Authority vide order dated:07.10.2009 allowed the claim petition and directed the Corporation to pay a sum of Rs.79,372/- (Rupees Seventy Nine Thousand Three Hundred and Seventy Two only) towards difference in gratuity with 10% interest per annum from 31.01.2004. Aggrieved by the order of the Controlling Authority, the Corporation preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority vide order dated:08.02.2013 dismissed the appeal with modification. The orders of the Gratuity Authorities are called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP have urged several contentions. Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the respective parties and perused the Writ papers with utmost care.

¶30

¶31

NC: 2023:KHC:45037 WP No. 18192 of 2013

¶32

The point that requires consideration is whether the

¶33

orders of the Gratuity Authorities requires interference.

¶34

Suffice it to note that the workman attained the age of superannuation on 31.12.2003. Taking into consideration of his services, he was paid gratuity of Rs.1,89,917/- (Rupees One Lakh Eighty Nine Thousand Nine Hundred and Seventeen only). It is not in dispute that the workman had availed loan from various banks, institutions etc., the details of which are as under:

¶35

Loan from UCO Bank	Rs.42,555/-
KSRTC Employees Credit Co-operative Society	Rs.25,250/-
BMTC Employees Co-operative Society Ltd.	Rs.38,618/-
Income Tax	Rs.3,190/-
Strike Period	Rs.932/-
Total	Rs.1,10,545/-
Total Gratuity:	Rs.1,89,917/-
*Less: (Loan amount)*	Rs.1,10,545/-
Difference	Rs.79,372/-

¶36

The amount of Rs.1,10,545/- (Rupees One Lakh Ten Thousand Five Hundred and Forty Five only) was paid to the

¶37

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:45037 WP No. 18192 of 2013

¶38

account of the workman maintained in the banks/ co-operative society from which the workman had availed loan. The Controlling Authority instead of deducting the said amount, has erroneously went ahead and directed the Corporation to pay the difference in gratuity. The Controlling Authority has overlooked the aspect that the workman had availed loan and that amount was required to be deducted.

¶39

The workman has admitted that he has been paid a sum of Rs.79,372/- (Rupees Seventy Nine Thousand Three Hundred and Seventy Two only). The calculation is as under:

¶40

The Controlling Authority determined the gratuity:	Rs.2,12,552/-
(Less) Gratuity amount paid to the workman:	(-) Rs.79,372/-
Balance:	Rs.1,33,180/-
(Less) Loan availed by the workman:	(-) Rs.1,10,545/-
Balance amount payable to the workman:	Rs.22,635/-

¶41

The Corporation is directed to pay a sum of Rs.22,635/(Rupees Twenty Two Thousand Six Hundred and Thirty Five only) with interest at 10% per annum from 20.09.2006 to

¶42

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:45037 WP No. 18192 of 2013

¶43

04.02.2010. Accordingly, the orders of the Gratuity Authorities are modified holding that the third respondent is entitled to receive the difference in gratuity in a sum of Rs.22,635/(Rupees Twenty Two Thousand Six Hundred and Thirty Five only) with interest at 10% per annum from 20.09.2006 to 04.02.2010.

¶44

7. As a result, the Writ Petition is partly allowed.

¶45

In view of disposal of the Writ Petition, the Controlling Authority is directed to release the amount of Rs.22,635/(Rupees Twenty Two Thousand Six Hundred and Thirty Five only) with interest at 10% per annum from 20.09.2006 to 04.02.2010 in favor of the third respondent after due identification and balance amount if any shall be refunded in favor of the Corporation.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17

Bangalore Metropolitan v. the Deputy Labour Commissisoner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bangalore Metropolitan v. the Deputy Labour Commissisoner

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

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs the Assistant Labour Commissioner

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs B. C. Rajesh

Tajusab Nadaf Vs the Managing Director Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation

B v Ashwathnarayanappa Vs Lakkaiah @ Gurulakaiah

Lingaraju Vs Chief Traffic Manager

Karnataka State Road Vs Lingaraju