Partly allowed

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. the Assistant Labour Commissioner

Karnataka HC6 Aug 2024WP/57735/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition by KSRTC challenging gratuity re-determination orders for a retired conductor. The High Court held service must be counted from the fresh appointment on 13.09.1980 (33 years 1 month), recalculated gratuity at Rs.2,25,090 with interest, and rejected deduction of excess salary relying on Rafiq Masih.

What did the court decide?

Corporation directed to pay Rs.2,25,090 with 10% p.a. interest from 01.12.2013 till deposit (03.03.2015); remaining amount, if any, refunded to petitioner.

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:31290 WP No. 57735 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 57735 OF 2018 (L-KSRTC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, BANGALORE CENTRAL DIVISION, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 027. BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SMT. H R RENUKA., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by 1. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER MAHALAKSHMI B M AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY, Location: HIGH COURT OF UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, KARNATAKA DIVISION 2, KARMEEKA BHAVAN, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 029.

¶13

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

¶14

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:31290 WP No. 57735 of 2018

¶15

T. K. SRINIVASAIAH SHETTY,

¶16

SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HIS LR'S

¶17

3(a) SMT.MANJULA T.S., W/O LATE T.SRINIVASSHETTY, ADULT,

¶18

3(b) LAKSHMI G.S., D/O LATE T.SRINIVASASHETTY, ADULT,

¶19

BOTH R3(a) AND (b) ARE R/O NO.301, II FLOOR, MAHAVEERA FLOOR APARTMENT, BANDEMUTT ROAD, KENGERI SATELLITE TOWN, BANGALORE – 560 060. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.MANJUNATH, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2; SMT.S.B.LAKSHMI, ADVOCATE FOR R3(a) AND (b))

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 30.11.2015 (ANNEXURE - D) PASSED BY THE R-2; QUASH THE ORDER DATED 16.1.2018 (ANENXURE - E) PASSED BY THE R-1 AND ETC.,

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:31290 WP No. 57735 of 2018

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Assailing the legality and correctness of the order dated 30-11-2015 passed by respondent No.2 - Assistant Labour Commissioner (Controlling Authority) and the order dated 16.01.2018 passed by respondent No.1 - Appellate Authority, Karnataka State Transport Corporation (“the Corporation” for short) is before this Court in the present writ petition.

¶26

Heard Smt. H.R. Renuka, learned counsel for the petitioner-Corporation and Sri K.Manjunath, learned HCGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Smt. S.B.Lakshmi, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3(a) and 3(b) and perused the material on record.

¶27

Respondent No.3 (“workman” for the sake of convenience) was appointed as a badli conductor in the year 1978 and was removed from the list of badli conductors on 11.07.1978. It is the case of the Corporation that the workman was appointed as a conductor on fresh terms and conditions on 13.09.1980

¶28

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:31290 WP No. 57735 of 2018

¶29

and he retired from service on 31.10.2013 and was paid gratuity by taking break in service of nine years and calculating the years of service as 24 years, the gratuity amount was determined by the Corporation as under:

¶30

Rs.13,760/- x 24.1 years = Rs.3,31,387/-.

¶31

Further, the Corporation contended that they have paid excess salary of Rs.1,01,251/- and the same was deducted from the gratuity payable to the workman and a sum of Rs. 2,30,136/- was paid as gratuity to the workman.

¶32

The workman filed an application before the

¶33

respondent - Controlling Authority claiming that he has rendered 37 years of service in the Corporation and his gratuity amount has to be re-determined and the difference in gratuity amount to be paid by the Corporation. Respondent No.2 - Controlling Authority directed the Corporation to pay the difference in gratuity amount of Rs.2,67,890/- by taking the basic salary of Rs.14,720/- and the years of service as 33 years and ten

¶34

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:31290 WP No. 57735 of 2018

¶35

months and determined the gratuity amount at Rs.4,98,026/- deducting the amount of Rs.2,30,136/which is already paid with interest at the rate of 10% p.a. from 30.11.2013. The Corporation and the workman preferred appeals before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority modified the order of the Controlling Authority by directing the Corporation to pay the difference in gratuity amount as under:

¶36

Rs.13,760/- x 35 years 3 months = 4,85,040/deducting the amount already paid, directed the Corporation to pay a sum of Rs.2,54,907/- with interest at the rate of 10% p.a. from 01.12.2013.

¶37

Aggrieved, the Corporation is before this Court. Against the modification by the Appellate Authority, but the workman has not preferred any petition.

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioner - Corporation

¶39

taking this Court to Annexures – “A”, “B” and “C” submits that the workman was initially appointed in the year 1978 as a badli conductor, but later on he was removed from the list on 11.07.1978, and on fresh terms and conditions

¶40

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:31290 WP No. 57735 of 2018

¶41

the workman was appointed by an appointment order dated 13.09.1980 and therefore, the period of service of the workman prior to 1980 cannot be considered and the workman has rendered service of only 33 years and one month as rightly held by the Controlling Authority. Annexure – “B” produced by the petitioner is marked as Ex.R5 before the Controlling Authority and the Controlling Authority held that the workman has rendered 33 years of service taking the year of service from 1980 and date of retirement on 31.10.2013. The appeals preferred by the workman and the Corporation was modified and the difference in gratuity was granted at Rs.2,54,907/- with interest at the rate of 10% p.a. from 01.12.2013 taking the salary of Rs.13,760/-, however, the years of service rendered was taken as 35 years and 3 months without considering Annexure-R5, wherein, the appointment of workman was on fresh terms and conditions on 13.09.1980.

¶42

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:31290 WP No. 57735 of 2018

¶43

7. The Corporation is before this Court on three

¶44

counts -

¶45

(i) That the service rendered by the workman is wrongly taken as 35 years 3 months and in fact it has to be taken as 33 years 1 month as the date of appointment was 13.09.1980.

¶46

(ii) That the workman was paid excess salary of Rs.1,01,251/- and the same was to be deducted from the gratuity awarded to the third respondent and non-consideration of this deduction is erroneous and unjust.

¶47

(iii) The break in service of nine years was not considered by the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority.

¶48

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent vehemently contended that the salary certificate produced by the respondent shows basic pay as Rs.14,720/-, but the Appellate Authority has erroneously taken the basic pay at Rs.13,760/-, which in fact has to be Rs.14,720/-. The fact remains that, against the order of the Appellate Authority taking the salary at Rs.13,760/- is not assailed by the workman.

¶49

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:31290 WP No. 57735 of 2018

¶50

This Court has carefully considered the

¶51

contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

¶52

EX.R5 is the order of appointment of the workman on fresh terms and conditions on 13.09.1980 and Annexure – “B” is the very exhibit produced by the Corporation along with the petition, the Controlling Authority considered Ex.R-5 while determining the gratuity amount payable by the Corporation. The Appellate Authority arrives at a conclusion that the date of appointment has to be taken as 1978 and passed the impugned order overlooking the appointment of the workman as conductor in the year 1980 was on fresh terms and conditions. The date of appointment of the workman has to be taken 13.09.1980 as is evident from Ex.R-5 and Annexure–“B”. If the said aspect is considered, the workman is entitled for 33 years, 01 month without any break in service. In the said circumstances, the gratuity that would be determined to the workman is

¶53

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:31290 WP No. 57735 of 2018

¶54

taking the basic pay at Rs.13,760/- as the Appellate Authority has taken the salary at Rs.13,760/-, which is not assailed by the workman and the years of service as 33 years, 01 month, if calculated, the workman is entitled for Rs.4,55,226/-, deducting the amount already paid by the Corporation to the extent of Rs.2,30,136/-, the gratuity payable by the Corporation comes to Rs.2,25,090/(Rs.13,760 x 33.01) with interest at the rate of 10% p.a. from 01.12.2013 till the date of deposit i.e., on 03.03.2015. The contention of the Corporation's counsel that the amount already paid the salary in excess to the extent of Rs,1,01,251/- has to be refunded, is not available to the Corporation in light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others¹ and the said contention fails and accordingly, this Court pass the following:

¶55

1 (2015) 4 SCC 334

¶56

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:31290 WP No. 57735 of 2018

¶57

ORDER

¶58

(i) The writ petition is allowed in part .

¶59

(ii) The petitioner is liable to pay a sum of Rs.2,25,090/- with interest at the rate of 10% p.a. from 01.12.2013 till the date of deposit i.e., 03.03.2015.

¶60

(iii) The remaining amount, if any, to be refunded to the petitioner.

¶61

Sd/(K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE

¶62

YKL

¶63

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19

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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Ramanna Vs Sri. Athaulla

The Executive Engineer Vs M. Anand

Sri P Pavan Vs Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation

The Superintendent of Central Excise Vs Sri G Ramachandra G P

The Head Mistress Vs the State of Karnataka

The Divisional Controller Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs Sri v R Muninarasimhaiah