Allowed

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. the Assistant Labour Commissioner

Karnataka HC15 Nov 2023WP/2936/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition filed by KSRTC to quash orders determining difference in gratuity. The court held that the application was filed with inordinate delay and laches after superannuation. It also found the authorities erred in ignoring the respondent's lack of continuous service, which was crucial for gratuity calculation.

What did the court decide?

Orders passed by the Controlling Authority dated 29.09.2014 and Appellate Authority dated 29.07.2019 were quashed.

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

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:40562 WP No. 2936 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO.2936 OF 2020 (L-KSRTC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

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

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SMT.RENUKA H.R., 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 BHAVAN, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 029.

¶14

THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND CONTROLLING AUTHORITY, UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, DIVISION-2, KARMEEKA BHAVAN, BANNERDHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 029.

¶15

G.T.RUDRAIAH S/O LATE THIMMAIAH, ADULT,

¶16

¶17

NC: 2023:KHC:40562 WP No. 2936 of 2020

¶18

NO.105, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, KENGERI, K.G.HALLI POST, GONIPURA, BANGALORE - 560 060.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SMT.V.SPOORTHI, HCGP FOR R1 & R2; SMT.PUSHPA T.S. ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Smt.H.R.Renuka., learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt.V.Spoorthi., learned HCGP for respondents 1 & 2 and Smt.Pushpa.T.S., learned counsel for respondent No.3 have appeared in person.

¶25

2. The brief facts are these:

¶26

The third respondent was appointed as a Badli Conductor in the establishment of the Corporation in the year 1976 i.e., on 25.03.1976. He was removed from service on 15.06.1978. On 12.09.1980, he was appointed on temporary basis as a Conductor. On 14.05.1982, he was placed on probation. On

¶27

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:40562 WP No. 2936 of 2020

¶28

14.11.1982, the service of the third respondent was confirmed. He attained the age of superannuation on 31.12.2011. The service rendered by the third respondent was considered as under:

¶29

	YEARS	MONTHS	DAYS
Total Period of Service	31	03	19
Break in Service	00	08	07
Active Service	30	07	12

¶30

Basic Pay	Rs.11,770/-
Basic Pay X Number of Years of Service	11,770 X 30.7
Gratuity paid by the Corporation	=Rs.3,59,966/-

¶31

The Corporation paid a sum of Rs.3,59,966/- (Rupees Three Lakh Fifty Nine Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty Six only) as Gratuity to the third respondent.

¶32

After a lapse of almost two years, the third respondent filed an application claiming difference in gratuity before the Controlling Authority on 30.07.2013. The Controlling Authority vide order dated:29.09.2014 determined the difference in gratuity as under:

¶33

¶34

NC: 2023:KHC:40562 WP No. 2936 of 2020

¶35

Rs.11,770 X 35.9 years	Rs.4,20,777/-
(Less) Paid	- Rs.3,59,966/-
Balance	= Rs. 60,811/-

¶36

The Controlling Authority directed the Corporation to pay a sum of Rs.60,811/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand Eight Hundred and Eleven only) with 10% interest per annum from 31.01.2012.

¶37

Aggrieved by the order of the Controlling Authority, both the Corporation and the third respondent preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority vide order dated:29.07.2019 dismissed both the appeals and confirmed the order of the Controlling Authority. The orders of the Gratuity Authorities are called into question in this Writ Petition by the Corporation on several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents have urged several contentions.

¶39

Smt.H.R.Renuka., learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation in presenting her arguments vehemently

¶40

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:40562 WP No. 2936 of 2020

¶41

contended that the Controlling Authority erred in entertaining the application. She argued by saying that there is an inordinate delay of almost two years in filing the application claiming difference in gratuity. Learned counsel vehemently contended that the third respondent was appointed as a Badli Conductor and he did not render continuous service to claim gratuity from 1976. Therefore, she submits that the orders of the Gratuity Authorities are liable to be set-aside.

¶42

Smt.Pushpa.T.S., learned counsel in presenting her arguments vehemently contended that the Corporation has calculated gratuity from 12.09.1980 and accordingly paid the same to the third respondent. However, there was difference in gratuity, hence the third respondent was constrained to make an application before the Controlling Authority seeking difference in gratuity. So far as delay is concerned, she argued by saying that the third respondent was aged 60 years, hence he could not have approached the Authorities well in time. She also submits that the Controlling Authority rightly concluded that sufficient reasons are accorded and condoned the delay.

¶43

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:40562 WP No. 2936 of 2020

¶44

Counsel therefore, submits that the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and the same may be dismissed.

¶45

Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the respective

¶46

parties and perused the Writ papers with utmost care.

¶47

The following points would arise for my

¶48

consideration:

¶49

Whether the Controlling Authority is justified in entertaining the application claiming difference in gratuity beyond the period of limitation?

¶50

Whether the Controlling Authority is justified in concluding that the third respondent is entitled for gratuity from the year 1976?

¶51

It is pertinent to note that Rule 10 of Payment of Gratuity (Central) Rules, 1972 and also Rule 10 of Karnataka Payment of Gratuity Rules, 1973 prescribes a time frame of 90 days to file an application claiming difference in gratuity. If the application is filed beyond 90 days, the Controlling Authority

¶52

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:40562 WP No. 2936 of 2020

¶53

may accept the application on sufficient cause being shown by the applicant after the expiry of the specified period.

¶54

Reverting to the facts of the case, the workman attained the age of superannuation on 31.12.2011. He filed an application claiming difference in gratuity on 30.07.2013. The applicant contended that he had requested the Corporation to pay difference in gratuity on several occasions, but the Corporation did not respond to his request. Hence, there is a delay in filing the application. The Corporation filed a detail statement of objections and prayed for the dismissal of the application on the grounds of delay and laches. The Controlling Authority accepted the contention of the applicant and concluded that the in case there is a delay in making application claiming difference in gratuity, the Authority should adopt a liberal approach in condoning the delay and accordingly, it condoned the delay. This is incorrect. The reason

¶55

is apparent. The applicant was not diligent in approaching the Authority well in time. Hence, the Controlling Authority ought to have considered the financial repercussions on the Corporation.

¶56

¶57

NC: 2023:KHC:40562 WP No. 2936 of 2020

¶58

Hence, the reason assigned by the Controlling Authority to condone the delay is unsustainable in law.

¶59

As already noted above, the workman attained the age of superannuation on 31.12.2011. However, he filed an application on 30.07.2013. There is an inordinate delay of almost two years. Therefore, in my view, the application filed by the workman is liable to be rejected on the grounds of delay and laches.

¶60

Furthermore, the Gratuity Authorities have failed to notice the admitted fact that the third respondent was appointed as a Badli Conductor and Corporation took note of his service from 12.09.1980 and paid the Gratuity Accordingly. The Authorities have failed to take note of the fact that the third respondent was removed from service in the year 1978 and he has not rendered continuous service to claim gratuity from 25.03.1976. This aspect of the matter has been overlooked by the Gratuity Authorities and have erroneously determined the gratuity for a period of 35 years 09 months as against 30 years 07 months.

¶61

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:40562 WP No. 2936 of 2020

¶62

For the reasons stated above, the orders of the Gratuity Authorities are liable to be set-aside. Accordingly, it is setaside.

¶63

The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The order

¶64

dated:29.09.2014 passed by the Controlling Authority in ¸ÀASÉå: ¸ÀPÁD¨ÉA-2/¦fJ/¹Dgï-119/2013 vide Annexure-C and the order

¶65

dated:29.07.2019 passed by the Appellate Authority in ¸ÀASÉå:¸ÀPÁD¨ÉA-4/G¥ÁPÁ/¹Dgï-07/2017-18 vide Annexure-E are

¶66

quashed.

¶67

8. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed .

¶68

In view of disposal of the Writ Petition, amount in deposit

¶69

if any is directed to be released/ refunded in favor of the Corporation.

¶70

Sd/JUDGE

¶71

TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19

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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs S.R. Krishna Kumar

M/S Stumpp Schuele and Somappa Vs the Secretary

M/S Mcf Limited Vs Sri. Jagadish Kunder

Shyamarao Vs the Divisional Controller

The Management of Ksrtc Vs Sri. Sikandar Butkurki

Chief Traffic Manager Vs Sri John D Souza