Writ Petition filed by Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation challenging Gratuity Authority orders. Court held dismissed employees not entitled to gratuity and quashed the orders.
Writ of Certiorari granted; orders of Controlling Authority dated 22.07.2019 and Appellate Authority dated 06.01.2021 quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO.3151 OF 2022 (L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, BANGALORE CENTRAL DIVISION, BANGALORE, BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER.
…PETITIONER
(BY SMT.H.R.RENUKA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
NC: 2023:KHC:39839 WP No. 3151 of 2022
(BY SMT.V.SPOORTHI, HCGP FOR R2 & R3; R1 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Smt.H.R.Renuka., learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.V.Spoorthi., learned HCGP for respondents 2 & 3 have appeared in person.
The notice to first respondent was ordered on 18.04.2022. The office note depicts that the first respondent is served. The first respondent has neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as party in person.
Learned counsel Smt.H.R.Renuka., submits that she has filed the Synopsis in the open Court and the same may be placed on record.
Submission is noted. Synopsis filed in the open Court is placed on record.
NC: 2023:KHC:39839 WP No. 3151 of 2022
2. The brief facts are these:
On 26.04.1999, the first respondent was selected for the
post of Conductor and placed on training for a period of two years. He was brought on probation on 31.12.2002. On 02.12.2014, he was dismissed from service. The service rendered by the workman was calculated for the purposes of gratuity as under:
| YEARS | MONTHS | DAYS | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total Period of Service | 12 | 11 | 00 |
| Break Service | 09 | 11 | 00 |
| Active Service | 03 | 00 | 00 |
The first respondent filed an application seeking gratuity before the Controlling Authority claiming that he has rendered service of sixteen years seven months and that he unjustly been denied gratuity. The Controlling Authority vide order dated:22.07.2019 determined the Gratuity and directed the Corporation to pay the same. Aggrieved by the order of the Controlling Authority, the Corporation preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority vide order dated:06.01.2021 dismissed the appeal. 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.
The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require reiteration.
The submission made on behalf of the Corporation is noted with utmost care. It is not in dispute that the first respondent was dismissed from service in the year 2014 and
the same has not been questioned by him. It is pivotal to note that the workman is not entitled for gratuity in terms of the Regulation as the Gratuity Regulation is not applicable to dismissed employees. Furthermore, in terms of the Gratuity Act, an employee has to render service of 240 days in each year in order to claim gratuity. As per Ex.M.3 the first respondent had worked for 240 days only for three years. Hence, he is not entitled for gratuity. This aspect of the matter has been overlooked by the Controlling Authority and has erroneously proceeded to determine the gratuity. This is unsustainable in law.
For the reasons stated above, the orders of the Gratuity Authorities are liable to be set-aside.
order dated:06.01.2021 passed by the Appellate Authority in ¸ÀA: ¸ÀPÁD¨ÉA-4/G¥ÁPÁ/¹Dgï-24/2019-20 vide Annexure-C are quashed.
NC: 2023:KHC:39839 WP No. 3151 of 2022
6. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed .
In view of disposal of the Writ Petition, amount in deposit
if any is directed to be refunded to the Corporation.
Sd/JUDGE
TKN,MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an employee dismissed from service is entitled to gratuity as per Gratuity Regulations.
Whether the petitioners are entitled to a Writ of Certiorari to quash Gratuity Authority orders.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation
A.V.Bhuvaneshwar Kumar
The Labour Officer and Controlling Authority
The Assistant Labour Commissioner and Appellate Authority
Jyoti Mulimani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
