Allowed

Karnataka State Road v. the Deputy Labour

Karnataka HC2 Nov 2023WP/44103/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court quashed orders granting extra gratuity to a workman for filing his claim after an inordinate delay of nearly three years, ruling that the delay and laches warranted rejection despite the application of beneficial legislation.

What did the court decide?

Writ of Certiorari ordered to quash orders dated 04-04-2013 and 12-02-2014; Writ Petition allowed; deposit amount directed to be refunded to the Corporation.

Karnataka State Road Vs the Deputy Labour — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:38981 WP No. 44103 of 2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO.44103 OF 2014 (L-KSRTC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, MYSORE DIVISION, BANNIMANTAPA, MYSORE - 570 001. BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHEIF LAW OFFICER.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

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

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, REGION - II, "KARMIKA BHAVAN" BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 029.

¶13

THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, MYSORE DIVISION, MYSORE - 570 001. 3. T.NAGEGOWDA S/O THIMMEGOWDA, ADULT, EWS NO.178, 11^TH CROSS, GANGOTHRI LAYOUT, MYSORE - 570 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. V.SPOORTHI., HCGP FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. LAKSHMAN RAO., ADVOCATE FOR R3 [ABSENT])

¶14

¶15

NC: 2023:KHC:38981 WP No. 44103 of 2014

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

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

¶20

When the matter was called in the forenoon session, there was no representation on behalf of respondent No.3, either personally or through video conferencing. The matter is again called in the afternoon session, there is no representation on behalf of respondent No.3, either personally or through video conferencing.

¶21

2. The brief facts are these:

¶22

The third respondent was appointed as Conductor in the establishment of the Corporation. He was placed on probation. He attained the age of superannuation on 31.01.2007. The workman claimed gratuity for the period December 1971 to January 1975 contending that he was working as a Badli

¶23

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:38981 WP No. 44103 of 2014

¶24

Conductor. The Corporation determined the gratuity and paid it accordingly in the year 2007. Strangely, the third respondent filed an application claiming difference in gratuity before the Controlling authority on 31.05.2010. The Controlling Authority vide order dated:04.04.2013 determined the difference in 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:12.02.2014 reduced the interest from Rs.43,128/- (Rupees Forty Three Thousand One Hundred and Twenty Eight only) to Rs.15,120/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand One Hundred and Twenty only). 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.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP have urged several contentions.

¶26

Smt.H.R.Renuka., learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation in presenting her arguments vehemently contended that the Controlling Authority erred in entertaining

¶27

¶28

NC: 2023:KHC:38981 WP No. 44103 of 2014

¶29

the application. She argued by saying that there is an inordinate delay of almost three years in filing the application claiming difference in gratuity. Therefore, she submits that the orders of the Gratuity Authorities are liable to be set-aside.

¶30

Learned HCGP justified the order of Controlling Authority.

¶31

Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the respective parties and perused the Writ papers with utmost care.

¶32

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?

¶33

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

¶34

Reverting to the facts of the case, the workman attained the age of superannuation on 31.01.2007. He filed an

¶35

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:38981 WP No. 44103 of 2014

¶36

application claiming difference in gratuity on 31.05.2010. The third respondent filed an affidavit to condone the delay. However, he contended that there is no delay in filing the application and hence, sought to condone the delay. The Corporation filed a detail statement of objections and prayed for the dismissal of the application on the grounds of delay and laches. However, the Controlling Authority condoned the delay on the ground that the Payment of Gratuity Act is a beneficial legislation and the denial of the gratuity would cause prejudice and injustice to the workman. This is incorrect. The reason 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. Hence, the reason assigned by the Controlling Authority to condone the delay is unsustainable in law.

¶37

As already noted above, the workman attained the age of superannuation on 31.01.2007. However, he filed an application on 31.05.2010. There is an inordinate delay of almost three years. Therefore, in my view, the application filed by the workman is liable to be rejected on the grounds of delay and laches. Since the application is rejected on the grounds of

¶38

¶39

NC: 2023:KHC:38981 WP No. 44103 of 2014

¶40

delay and laches, there is nothing to discuss on the merits of the case. Accordingly, it is rejected. For the reasons stated above, the orders of the Gratuity Authorities are liable to be set-aside. Accordingly, it is set-aside.

¶41

The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The order

¶42

dated:04.04.2013 passed by the Controlling Authority in ¸ÀASÉå:¸ÀPÁDªÉÄÊ/¦fJ/¹Dgï-56/2010 vide Annexure-B and the order dated:12.02.2014 passed by the Appellate Authority in ¸ÀASÉå:GPÁD¨ÉA-2/G¥ÁPÁ/¹Dgï-113/2013-14 vide Annexure-C are quashed.

¶43

8. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed .

¶44

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

¶45

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

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35

Karnataka State Road v. the Deputy Labour

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka State Road v. the Deputy Labour

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

M/S Konark Power Projects Limited Vs Sri H Kamaraj

Bangalore Metropolitan Vs K v Seetharam

The Executive Engineer Vs R Venkatesh

Sri.M.S.Narayanaswamy Vs the Divisional Controller

Karnataka State Road Vs S Mallesha

Sri Maheswara C Vs the Managing Director