Allowed

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. the Assistant Labour Commissioner

Karnataka HC5 Dec 2023WP/50742/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the gratuity authorities' decision to award higher gratuity based on total service. The Court held that gratuity is calculable only on active service and quashed the orders directing payment.

What did the court decide?

Orders of the Gratuity Authorities dated 29.06.2015 and 27.11.2017 quashed; Writ Petition allowed; amount deposited to be refunded to the Corporation.

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

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:43802 WP No. 50742 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO.50742 OF 2018 (L-KSRTC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TUMKUR DIVISION, TUMKUR, 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 THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY, UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, DIVISION 3, KARMEEKA BHAVAN, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 029.

¶14

THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND CONTROLLING AUTHORITY, UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, DIVISION 1, KARMEEKA BHAVAN, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 029.

¶15

D. NAGARAJU S/O. LATE DASAPPA, ADULT, R/O CINEMA RAJAPPA ROAD,

¶16

¶17

NC: 2023:KHC:43802 WP No. 50742 of 2018

¶18

CHIKKAPET, TUMKUR - 572 101.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

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

¶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 PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

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

¶25

Emergent notice to the third respondent was ordered on 16.01.2019. A perusal of the office note depicts that the notice to third respondent is served. The third respondent has neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as party in person.

¶26

The brief facts are these:

¶27

The third respondent joined the services of the

¶28

Corporation as a Badli Conductor in the year 1980 i.e., on

¶29

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:43802 WP No. 50742 of 2018

¶30

04.08.1980. On 14.05.1982, he was brought on probation. He attained the age of superannuation on 31.07.2012. The gratuity payable to the workman was calculated as under:

¶31

	Years	Months	Days
Total period of service	31	11	27
Break in Service	10	06	15
Active Service	21	05	12

¶32

Basic Pay	Rs.11,653
Basic Pay X Number of Years of Service	11,653 X 21.5 years
Gratuity paid by the Corporation	=Rs.2,49,568/-

¶33

The Corporation paid a sum of Rs.2,49,568/- (Rupees Two Lakh Forty Nine Thousand Five hundred and Sixty Eight only) as Gratuity to the third respondent.

¶34

As things stood thus, the third respondent filed an application before the Controlling Authority claiming difference in gratuity in the year 2013 i.e., on 17.09.2013. The Controlling Authority vide order dated:29.06.2015 directed the Corporation to pay the difference in gratuity. Aggrieved by the order of the Controlling Authority, the Corporation preferred an appeal

¶35

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:43802 WP No. 50742 of 2018

¶36

before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority vide order dated:27.11.2017 dismissed the appeal. The orders of the Gratuity Authorities are called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as setout in the Memorandum of Wirt Petition.

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged several

¶38

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

¶39

The point that requires consideration is whether the orders of the Gratuity Authorities require interference.

¶40

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 2012 i.e., on 31.07.2012. He rendered active service of 21 years 05 months and 15 days and accordingly the gratuity was paid by the Corporation. The Controlling Authority has erred in directing payment of gratuity to the third respondent by taking his length of service as 36 years 05 months as against 21 years 05 months and 12 days. The third respondent is not entitled for payment of gratuity for a period of 10 years 06 months and 15

¶41

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:43802 WP No. 50742 of 2018

¶42

days, the direction issued is erroneous as this period pertains to LWA, suspension and the period of absence and the workman had not rendered active service for this period. This aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration by the authorities.

¶43

The Controlling Authority also erred in directing payment of gratuity for the period for which the workman had not rendered service, despite the fact that the workman had not rendered service of 240 days for a period of fifteen years. Further the break in service of the workman had not been considered. In terms of the Gratuity Regulations, an employee would be entitled for payment of gratuity for the active period of service rendered by him. In the present case, the payment of gratuity has been made in terms of the Regulations. Hence, the direction of the second respondent to pay gratuity for a period of 36.5 years is erroneous and unjust. That apart there is also delay in preferring the application seeking difference in gratuity.

¶44

¶45

NC: 2023:KHC:43802 WP No. 50742 of 2018

¶46

For the reasons stated above, the orders passed by the Gratuity Authorities are liable to be set-aside and accordingly it is set-aside.

¶47