Partly allowed

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. the Assistant Labour Commissioner

Karnataka HC6 Mar 2023WP/50778/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed writ petition in part, modifying the Controlling Authority's order, holding the Corporation liable to pay Rs.92,307/- inclusive of 10% interest as the difference in gratuity payable, clarifying that dearness allowance already merged in basic pay should not be included in calculation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered to pay Rs.92,307/- inclusive of 10% interest as difference in gratuity; Respondent allowed to withdraw deposited amount.

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

¶1

¶2

WP No. 50778 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 50778 OF 2018 (L-KSRTC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION HASSAN DIVISION, HASSAN BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER

¶10

REPRESENTED BY ITS,CHIEF LAW OFFICER.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

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

¶13

THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY

¶14

UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT CHIKMAGALUR DIVISION

¶15

CHIKAMAGALUR - 577 101.

¶16

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶17

THE ASST. LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT CHIKMAGALUR DIVISION CHIKMAGALUR - 577 101.

¶18

D N PUTTASWAMY

¶19

S/O NANJAPPA, ADULT, C/O B NAGARAJU , NO.396, 14TH MAIN ROAD, RAGHAVENDRA NAGAR,

¶20

MYSORE - 570 011.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. BHOJEGOWDA T. KOLLER, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; R3 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶23

¶24

WP No. 50778 of 2018

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTION OR ORDER QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED IN NO. ALCC/PGA/APPEAL/47/2017-18 DATED 30/6/2018 [ANNEXURE-C] PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT AND ETC.

¶26

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

¶27

ORDER

¶28

The respondent No.3 joined the services of the Corporation on 1.2.1975, and he retired from service on 30.6.2008 after attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner - Corporation determined the gratuity payable to the workman at Rs.2,59,600/-. The respondent No.3 filed an application under Section 7(4) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, claiming the difference in gratuity for a period of 37 years. The respondent No.2 - Controlling Authority by order dated 31.3.2016 allowed the application and directed the Corporation to pay the balance of gratuity of Rs.1,44,574/inclusive of interest at 8% p.a. The petitioner - Corporation filed an appeal under Section 7(7) of the Act, 1972 by depositing the gratuity determined by the respondent No.2 before the Controlling Authority. The workman also filed an appeal seeking for enhancing the gratuity amount payable. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal, against which, the petitioner - Corporation is before this Court.

¶29

The respondent No.3 though served with notice has not chosen to appear in person or through his counsel.

¶30

¶31

WP No. 50778 of 2018

¶32

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶33

The basic pay of the workman including the dearness allowance comes to Rs.8,800/as against Rs.10,802/-. The Controlling Authority had determined the basic pay at Rs.10,802/- by including dearness allowance which was already merged with the basic pay. The difference on gratuity amount payable to the workman after merging the dearness allowance comes to Rs.92,307/-, however, the Controlling Authority has determined the same at Rs.1,44,574/-, which is impermissible. Hence, to this extent, the impugned order passed by the Controlling authority requires to be modified. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶34

ORDER

¶35

i) Writ petition is allowed in part.

¶36

ii) The impugned order dated 31.3.2016 passed by the respondent No.2 vide Annexure-A is hereby modified and the petitioner - Corporation is held liable to pay a sum of Rs.92,307/- inclusive of 10% interest per annum towards difference of gratuity amount payable to the workmen.

¶37

iii) The workman is permitted to withdraw the said amount of Rs.92,307/- deposited before the Controlling Authority.

¶38

iv) The petitioner - Corporation is entitled for release of the balance amount deposited before the Controlling Authority.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

BKM

¶41

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48

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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri v Manjunath Vs the Division Controller

Sri Mallesha Vs the Manager

Suryodaya Mill Workers Union Vs the Management of Suryodaya Industries Limited

M Sampath Kumar Vs the Divisional Controller

Shashikala Bai Vs the Regional Transport Authority

Chandan K N Vs the Additional Chief Secretary