Allowed

Sri Mohan Rao v. the Deputy Labour Commissioner

Karnataka HC10 Nov 2023WP/56756/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka quashed the Labour Authority's order rejecting the petitioner's gratuity claim for not addressing a prior High Court observation. The matter is remanded for fresh disposal within a specified timeframe.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 10.10.2017 quashed and matter remanded to second respondent for fresh consideration with liberty to urge contentions.

Sri Mohan Rao Vs the Deputy Labour… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:40461 WP No. 56756 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO.56756 OF 2017 (L-KSRTC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. MOHAN RAO AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, S/O LATE M.RAMESH, NO: 465/33, 1^ST FLOOR 8^TH MAIN, 3^RD CROSS, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 040.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. S.B.MUKKANNAPPA., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER, THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, HASSAN REGION, HASSAN - 573 201.

¶12

Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, CHIKKAMAGALURU, DIVISION, CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101.

¶14

THE WORKS MANAGER, REGIONAL WORKSHOP, KSRTC, HASSAN DIVISION, HASSAN - 573 201.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SMT. V.SPOORTHI., HCGP FOR R1 & 2; SMT. H.R.RENUKA., ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶17

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC:40461 WP No. 56756 of 2017

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Sri.S.B.Mukkannappa., learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt.V.Spoorthi., learned HCGP for respondents 1 & 2 and

¶23

Smt.H.R.Renuka., learned counsel for respondent No.3 have appeared in person.

¶24

2. The brief facts are these:

¶25

The petitioner was appointed as a Special Grade Clerk in KIMCO in the year 1960. KIMCO was taken over by the KSRTC in the year 1996. The petitioner was transferred to KSRTC and he has been absorbed as an Assistant Marketing Officer on 01.10.1996. He was retired from the service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.1997. The respondent Corporation paid the gratuity in a sum of Rs.1,23,950/(Rupees One Lakh Twenty Three Thousand Nine Hundred and

¶26

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:40461 WP No. 56756 of 2017

¶27

Fifty only) to the petitioner. The petitioner claimed the difference of gratuity in a sum of Rs.1,10,852/- (Rupees One Lakh Ten Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty Two only) in terms of the Government Order dated: 28.11.1995. The petitioner filed W.P.No.41135/2003 before this Court seeking direction for payment of difference in gratuity. The Writ Petition filed by the petitioner came to be disposed of on 01.03.2007 for settlement of gratuity in terms of Judgment passed by the Apex Court in

¶28

R.KRISHNA REDDY 's case.

¶29

The third respondent rejected the claim of the petitioner and issued an endorsement on 10.04.2008. The petitioner filed a petition before the second respondent claiming difference in gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act in Dispute No. PGA/SR.16/2009-10. The third respondent rejected the petition on 29.02.2012. The petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent in No.DLC/PGA/SR-16/2012-13. The first respondent rejected the appeal on 21.11.2012. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition in No.38284/2013 before this Court and questioned the orders of the Gratuity Authorities. This Court on 24.10.2016, quashed the impugned order and matter was

¶30

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:40461 WP No. 56756 of 2017

¶31

remitted to the first respondent for fresh disposal in accordance with law. On 10.10.2017, the second respondent rejected the appeal without looking into the observation made by this Court in Writ Petition. It is this order that is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents have urged several contentions. Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the respective parties and perused the Writ papers with utmost care.

¶33

The principal ground on which this Court is asked to quash the order dated:10.10.2017 passed by the second respondent is that the Authority has overlooked the observation made by this Court in the Writ Petition and has rejected the claim of the petitioner.

¶34

Sri.S.B.Mukkannappa., learned counsel for the petitioner in presenting his arguments drew the attention of the Court to the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.38284/2013 vide Annexure-G to contend that the Coordinate Bench of this

¶35

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:40461 WP No. 56756 of 2017

¶36

Court has specifically given a finding that the terminal benefits of the petitioner should be regulated with reference to the agreements/ orders in force as on the date of his retirement and not with reference to the subsequent Memorandum of Settlement dated:17.04.1999 entered into by the KSRTC and the workmen of KSRTC Regional Workshop, Hassan.

¶37

In reply, learned counsel Smt.H.R.Renuka., appearing on behalf of the Corporation submits that there are several contentions which are required to be urged about Settlement dated:03.04.1996 and also Settlement dated:17.04.1999. Hence, an opportunity may be accorded to the Corporation to urge those contentions before the second respondent.

¶38

Perused the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.38284/2013 with utmost care. A perusal of the same would reveal that this Court has given a finding that the terminal benefits of the petitioner should be regulated with reference to the agreements/ orders in force as on the date of the retirement of the petitioner and not with reference to the subsequent Memorandum of Settlement dated:17.04.1999. I

¶39

¶40

NC: 2023:KHC:40461 WP No. 56756 of 2017

¶41

have also perused the impugned order with utmost care. Except for noticing the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.38284/2013, the Authority has not dealt with the matter as directed by this Court. Therefore, the order dated: 10.10.2017 passed by the second respondent is liable to be set-aside and the matter requires a remand.

¶42

The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The order dated:10.10.2017 passed by the second respondent in ¥ÀæPÀgÀt ¸ÀASÉå:¸ÀPÁDa/¦fJ.ªÉÄÃ®ä£À«/01/2016-17 vide Annexure-H is quashed.

¶43

The matter is remanded to the second respondent for fresh consideration. The petitioner and the third respondent are at a liberty to urge their contentions.

¶44

Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed and remanded .

¶45

Taking note of the age of the petitioner, the second respondent is directed to dispose of the appeal in accordance with the law on or before 31.01.2024.

¶46

¶47

NC: 2023:KHC:40461 WP No. 56756 of 2017

¶48

Since the petitioner and the third respondent are represented by their respective counsel, they are directed to

¶49

appear before the second respondent on 01.12.2023 without awaiting further notice.

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17

Sri Mohan Rao v. the Deputy Labour Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Mohan Rao v. the Deputy 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

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs the Assistant Labour Commissioner

Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation Vs Amaresha

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs Shek Noorulla

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs S.R. Krishna Kumar

M/S Stumpp Schuele and Somappa Vs the Secretary

M/S Mcf Limited Vs Sri. Jagadish Kunder