Allowed

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Shek Noorulla

Karnataka HC9 Nov 2023WP/7001/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition filed by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation challenging grievances raised by a retired employee. The court quashed the orders allowing a delayed gratuity claim due to inordinate delay and laches, set aside the relevant authority orders, and directed the refund of any deposited amount to the corporation.

What did the court decide?

Orders of Controlling Authority and Appellate Authority quashed; Writ Petition allowed; application for gratuity difference rejected due to delay and laches; amount directed to be released/refunded to

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

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:40234 WP No. 7001 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.7001 OF 2022 (L-KSRTC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CHIKKABALLAPURA DIVISION, CHIKKABALLAPURA, BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

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

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SHEK NOORULLA S/O SHEAK SABJAN SAB, NO.67, 3^RD CROSS, RAILWAY PARALLEL ROAD, PAMBA NAGARA, YESHWANTHPURA, BANGALORE - 560 022.

¶15

THE LABOUR OFFICER AND CONTROLLING AUTHORITY, UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, CHIKKABALALPURA DIVISION, CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562 101.

¶16

THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY, UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, BANGALORE, REGION-2,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC:40234 WP No. 7001 of 2022

¶19

KARMEKA BHAWAN BANNERGATTA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 026.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Smt.H.R.Renuka., learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.V.Spoorthi., learned HCGP for respondents 2 and 3 have appeared in person.

¶26

The notice to the first respondent was ordered on 29.03.2022. 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.

¶27

2. The brief facts are these:

¶28

The first respondent was an employee of the Corporation. He retired from service on 31.05.2012. The Corporation determined the gratuity an paid the same accordingly. After a lapse of almost four years, the first respondent filed an

¶29

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:40234 WP No. 7001 of 2022

¶30

application claiming difference in gratuity before the Controlling Authority on 29.01.2016. The Controlling Authority vide order dated:28.05.2019 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:30.12.2020 rejected 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.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged several contentions.

¶32

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 the application. She argued by saying that there is an inordinate delay of almost four 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.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2023:KHC:40234 WP No. 7001 of 2022

¶35

Smt.V.Spoorthi., learned HCGP justified the orders of the Gratuity Authorities and submits that the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and the same may be dismissed.

¶36

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

¶37

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?

¶38

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.

¶39

Reverting to the facts of the case, the first respondent retired from service on 31.05.2012. He filed an application claiming difference in gratuity on 29.01.2016. The first respondent filed an application seeking condonation of delay and requested to condone the delay in filing the

¶40

¶41

NC: 2023:KHC:40234 WP No. 7001 of 2022

¶42

application. 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.

¶43

As already noted above, the first respondent retired from service on 31.05.2012. However, he filed an application on 29.01.2016. There is an inordinate delay of almost four 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 delay and laches, there is nothing to discuss on the merits of the case. Accordingly, it is rejected. For the reasons stated above, the

¶44

¶45

NC: 2023:KHC:40234 WP No. 7001 of 2022

¶46

orders of the Gratuity Authorities are liable to be set-aside. Accordingly, it is set-aside.

¶47

The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The order dated:28.05.2019 passed by the Controlling Authority in ¸ÀASÉå:PÁCa/¦fJ/¹Dgï-53/2017 vide Annexure-A and the order dated:30.12.2020 passed by the Appellate Authority in ¸ÀASÉå:¸ÀPÁ¨ÉA-2/J¦fJ/¹Dgï-23/2019-20 vide Annexure-C are

¶48

quashed.

¶49

8. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed .

¶50

In view of disposal of the Writ Petition, amount in deposit if any is directed to be released/ refunded in favor of the Corporation.

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Shek Noorulla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Shek Noorulla

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 B Ravindrakumar

The Chief Accounts Officer & Vs Sri. Venkatesh

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs a v Bhuvaneshwar Kumar

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs the Assistant Labour Commissioner

Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation Vs Amaresha

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs Abdul Aziz Khan