Allowed

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. the Assistant Labour Commissioner

Karnataka HC9 Nov 2023WP/2911/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition filed by KSRTC challenging an Appellate Authority order that awarded interest on an additional gratuity claim from the date of superannuation. The Court set aside the interest award due to unreasonable delay and confirmed the amount payable from the date of the initial application.

What did the court decide?

The order of the Appellate Authority dated 29.07.2019 awarding interest from 01.07.2003 is quashed and set aside. The order of the Controlling Authority dated 28.03.2016 is confirmed.

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:40143 WP No. 2911 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO.2911 OF 2020 (L-KSRTC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, BANGALORE CENTRAL DIVISION, BANGALORE - 560 027. BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

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

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

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

¶14

THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND CONTROLLING AUTHORTIY, UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, DIVISION - 2, KARMEEKA BHAWAN, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 029.

¶15

N.RAMEGOWDA S/O LATE NANJEGOWDA, ADULT,

¶16

R/O HUBBANAHALLI VILLAGE, HUBBANAHALLI POST,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC:40143 WP No. 2911 of 2020

¶19

SANTHEBACHAHALLI HOBLI, K.R.PET TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 573 115.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SMT. V.SPOORTHI., HCGP FOR R1 & R2; R3 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

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

¶26

The notice to the third respondent was ordered on 07.02.2020. The office note depicts that the third respondent is served. The third respondent has neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as party in person.

¶27

2. The brief facts are these:

¶28

The third respondent was appointed as a Conductor in the establishment of the Corporation in the year 1967. He attained the age of superannuation on 31.05.2003. His services were

¶29

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:40143 WP No. 2911 of 2020

¶30

calculated by the Corporation as under for the purposes of gratuity:

¶31

	YEARS	MONTHS	DAYS
Total Period of Service	35	07	21
Break in Service	04	11	12
Active Service	30	08	12

¶32

Basic Pay	Rs.7,115/-
Basic Pay X Number of Years of Service	7,115 X 30.8
Gratuity paid by the Corporation	=Rs.2,17,600/-

¶33

The Corporation paid a sum of Rs.2,17,600/- (Rupees Two Lakh Seventeen Thousand and Six Hundred only) as Gratuity to the third respondent. After a lapse of almost six years, the third respondent filed an application before the Controlling Authority claiming difference in gratuity for a period of thirty one years. The Controlling Authority vide order dated:27.07.2010 dismissed the application on the grounds of delay and laches. Aggrieved by the order of the Controlling Authority, the third respondent preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority vide order

¶34

¶35

NC: 2023:KHC:40143 WP No. 2911 of 2020

¶36

dated:19.11.2012 allowed the appeal and directed the Controlling Authority to decide the application on the merits.

¶37

On remand, the Controlling Authority vide order

¶38

dated:28.03.2016 determined the gratuity as under:

¶39

Rs.7,115 X 35.7 years	Rs.2,53,175/-
(Less) Deduction	- Rs.2,17,600/-
Balance	= Rs. 35,575/-

¶40

The Controlling Authority directed the Corporation to pay a sum of Rs.35,575/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand Five Hundred and Seventy Five only) with 10% interest per annum from 17.11.2009.

¶41

Aggrieved by the order of the Controlling Authority, the third respondent preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority vide order dated:29.07.2019 allowed the appeal and directed payment of interest from 01.07.2003 on Rs.35,575/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand Five Hundred and Seventy Five only). The order of the Appellate Authority is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.

¶42

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:40143 WP No. 2911 of 2020

¶43

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

¶44

The point that requires consideration is whether the Appellate Authority justified in awarding interest from 01.07.2003.

¶45

The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require reiteration. It is not in dispute that the third respondent attained the age of superannuation back in the year 2003. Strangely, he filed an application claiming difference in gratuity in the year 2009 i.e., after a lapse of almost six years. After series of litigation, the Controlling Authority rightly determined the difference in gratuity and directed the Corporation to pay a sum of Rs.35,575/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand Five Hundred and Seventy Five only) with 10% interest from 17.11.2009 i.e., from the date of application. However, the Appellate Authority on mis-appreciation of the issue, erroneously proceeded and awarded interest of 10% from 01.07.2003. This is untenable.

¶46

The reason is apparent. As already noted above, there is an inordinate delay in filing the application claiming difference in

¶47

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:40143 WP No. 2911 of 2020

¶48

gratuity. Therefore, awarding interest from 01.07.2003 is totally untenable in law.

¶49

The respondent is entitled for interest at the rate of 10% per annum on Rs.35,575/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand Five Hundred and Seventy Five only) from 17.11.2009 and not from 01.07.2003. Therefore, the order of the Appellate Authority is liable to be set-aside. Accordingly, it is set-aside.

¶50

The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The order

¶51

dated:29.07.2019 passed by the Appellate Authority in ¸ÀA.¸ÀPÁD¨ÉA-4/G¥ÁPÁ/¹Dgï-74/2017-18 vide Annexure-B is

¶52

quashed. The order dated:28.03.2016 passed by the Controlling Authority in ¥ÀæPÀgÀt ¸ÀASÉå: ¸ÀPÁD¨ÉA-2/¦fJ/Dgï-131/2014

¶53

vide Annexure-A is confirmed.

¶54

Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed .

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56

TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11

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

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs B Ravindrakumar

The Chief Accounts Officer & Vs Sri. Venkatesh

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs a v Bhuvaneshwar Kumar

Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation Vs Amaresha

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs Shek Noorulla

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs Abdul Aziz Khan