Allowed

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. N Manjunath

Karnataka HC4 Dec 2023WP/3150/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka quashed the orders of the Controlling Authority and Appellate Authority granting condonation of delay in a gratuity claim. The court held the applicant failed to prove sufficient cause for the two-year delay, violating statutory limitations, and allowed the petitioner's writ petition.

What did the court decide?

The orders of the Controlling Authority and Appellate Authority dated 27.09.2019 and 23.11.2020 were quashed. The Writ Petition was allowed.

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

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:43646 WP No. 3150 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO.3150 OF 2022 (L-KSRTC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

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

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

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

¶10

AND:

¶11

N.MANJUNATH S/O H.NARYANAGOWDA, NEAR ANJENYA TEMPLE, KUMBAR PETE, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 161.

¶12

Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE LABOUR OFFICER AND CONTROLLING AUTHORITY, UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, CHIKKABALLAPURA DIVISION, CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562 101.

¶14

THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY, UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, BANGALORE, REGION - 2, KARMEEKA BHAWAN, BANNERAGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 026.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. D.N.CHOWDAPPA., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SMT. V.SPOORTHI., HCGP FOR R2 AND R3)

¶16

¶17

NC: 2023:KHC:43646 WP No. 3150 of 2022

¶18

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

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Smt.H.R.Renuka., learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.D.N.Chowdappa., learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Smt.V.Spoorthi., learned HCGP for respondents 2 & 3 have appeared in person.

¶22

2. The brief facts are these:

¶23

The first respondent - N.Manjunath joined the services of the Corporation on 13.12.1982 and he took VRS on 12.08.2014.

¶24

As things stood thus, he filed an application in the year 2016 claiming difference in gratuity before the Controlling Authority along with an application seeking condonation of delay. The Controlling Authority vide order dated:27.09.2019 allowed the application and directed the Corporation to pay the difference in gratuity to the first respondent. Aggrieved by the

¶25

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:43646 WP No. 3150 of 2022

¶26

order of the Controlling Authority, the Corporation preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority vide order dated:23.11.2020, dismissed the appeal. 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.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent

¶28

No.1 have urged several contentions.

¶29

Smt.H.R.Renuka., learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation in presenting her arguments vehemently contended that the Controlling Authority has erred in entertaining the application. She argued by saying that there is an inordinate delay of almost two years in fling the application claiming difference in gratuity. Therefore, she submits that the orders of the Controlling Authority is liable to be set-aside. Learned counsel submitted that she is not urging any contentions on the merits of the case and requested the Court to give a finding only on the grounds of delay and laches.

¶30

By way of reply, learned counsel Sri.D.N.Chowdappa., vehemently contended that there is no delay in the present

¶31

¶32

NC: 2023:KHC:43646 WP No. 3150 of 2022

¶33

case. The workman retried from service in the year 2014 and he filed an application in the year 2016. Learned counsel contended that the workman made an application seeking condonation of delay. He argued by saying that the workman was making request by giving several representations to the Corporation to pay the gratuity amount, but the said request was not honored by the Corporation. In the application, it is stated that due to financial crisis and due to ill-health, he was unable to file the application in time and if there is any delay in filing the application, the same may be condoned. In support of his contentions, learned counsel placed reliance on the following decisions:

¶34

(1) B.S.GIRISH VS. THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND OTHERS - W.P.4818/2010 C/w W.P.No.7532/2010 & W.P.No.24476/2010 -

¶35

DISPOSED OF ON 22.03.2011.

¶36

(2) BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND OTHERS - W.P.No.334/2009 - DISPOSED OF ON 20.01.2009.

¶37

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:43646 WP No. 3150 of 2022

¶38

Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of

¶39

respective parties and perused the Writ papers and the records with utmost care.

¶40

The point that requires consideration is whether the Controlling Authority is justified in entertaining the application claiming difference in gratuity beyond the period of limitation?

¶41

The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require reiteration. Suffice it to note that the workman took VRS and he retired from the service back in the year 2014 i.e., on 12.08.2014. He filed an application claiming difference in gratuity on 10.02.2016. An application under Rule 10(i)(iii) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 was filed seeking condonation of delay if any in preferring the claim application. The petitioner N.Manjunath has made a declaration of facts (affidavit) that he had requested the Corporation by giving several representations to pay the gratuity amount, but the same was not honored by the Corporation. He has also stated that due to financial crisis and ill-health, he was unable to file the application in time. The Corporation filed a detailed statement of objections and prayed for the dismissal of the application on the grounds of delay and laches.

¶42

¶43

NC: 2023:KHC:43646 WP No. 3150 of 2022

¶44

The Controlling Authority framed Issues and the first issue relates to condonation of delay. The Controlling Authority while answering Issue No.1, condoned the delay placing reliance on the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.4818/2010 C/w W.P.No.7532/2010 and W.P.No.24476/2010 and concluded that the Payment of Gratuity Act is a beneficial legislation and denial of gratuity would cause prejudice and injustice to the workman. This is incorrect. The reason is quite apparent. In the present case, the applicant contended that he made request to the Corporation to pay the difference in gratuity and it is also stated by him that he had financial crisis and he was suffering from ill-health. But there is nothing on record to show that he made representation requesting the Corporation to pay the difference in gratuity. Furthermore, there is nothing on record to show that, he was suffering from ill-health at that point in time.

¶45

No doubt, the Gratuity Act is a beneficial legislation. However, 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

¶46

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:43646 WP No. 3150 of 2022

¶47

application is filed beyond 90 days, the Controlling Authority may accept the application on sufficient cause being shown by the applicant after the expiry of the specified period. In the preset case, the applicant has failed to show the sufficient cause to condone the delay. This aspect of the matter has been overlooked by the Controlling Authority and has erroneously proceeded to condone the delay. This is unsustainable in law.

¶48

As already noted above, when the rule prescribes the time frame, the applicant ought to have presented the application well in time. Even otherwise also, sufficient cause is not shown to condone the delay. Hence, the application is liable to be rejected on the grounds of delay and laches. Accordingly, it is rejected. Since the application is rejected on the grounds of delay and laches, there is nothing to discuss on the merits of the case as requested by the counsel for the petitioner.

¶49

Learned counsel for the first respondent has cited the cases referred to supra , but I do not think that the law is in doubt. Each decision turns on its facts.

¶50

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

¶51

¶52

NC: 2023:KHC:43646 WP No. 3150 of 2022

¶53