Partly allowed

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. the Assistant Labour Commissioner

Karnataka HC25 Sept 2024WP/58684/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

KSRTC challenged the Controlling Authority's and Appellate Authority's orders on gratuity payable to a former employee, arguing gratuity should follow its appointment terms and that breaks reduced service below five years. The employee consented to Rs.35,578 with interest; the court held no Section 2A(2) order was passed to treat absence as break in service and partly allowed the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Gratuity fixed at Rs.35,578 with 10% p.a. interest from 11.07.2013 to 31.03.2016; R-2 directed to release it forthwith, remaining amount to be disbursed to the Corporation.

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

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:40314 WP No. 58684 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.58684 OF 2017 (L-KSRTC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION PUTTUR DIVISION PUTTUR BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER REPRESENTED BY BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER. ... PETITIONER

¶9

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

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT MANGALORE DIVISION MANGALORE – 575 001.

¶12

Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT MANGALORE DIVISION MANGALORE – 575 001.

¶14

ANTHONY D’SOUZA W/O. MARTIN D’SOUZA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O. KAMALASHILE POST, KUNDAPURA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT – 576 201. ... RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI KIRAN V. RON, AAG A/W SRI MAYANNA K., HCGP FOR R-1 & R-2; SRI V.S. NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R-3)

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:40314 WP No. 58684 of 2017

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 28.07.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-H PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT; QUASH THE ORDER PASSED DATED 31.03.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-F PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶19

ORAL ORDER

¶20

Petitioner-Corporation is before this Court, assailing the orders passed by the Controlling Authority and confirmed by the Appellate Authority.

¶21

The ground raised by the petitioner –

¶22

Corporation is on two-folds:

¶23

i. That the orders of the authorities calculating gratuity in terms of regulations is erroneous, as the gratuity payable to respondent No.3 is as per the terms and conditions of the appointment order, which governed that respondent No.3 would be paid gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and hence,

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:40314 WP No. 58684 of 2017

¶25

respondent No.3 is not entitled for payment of gratuity in terms of the Regulations.

¶26

ii. That the authorities committed an error in taking into consideration the period of service rendered by respondent No.3 as seven years without considering the break in service of the

¶27

employee and if the break in service is considered, the service rendered by respondent No.3 is less than five years.

¶28

Learned counsel for respondent No.3 on

¶29

instructions files memo, which reads as under:

¶30

“On instructions the advocate for 3^rd respondent submits that the 3^rd respondent consents for receiving gratuity amount of Rs.35,578/- along with interest at 10% for the delayed payment for the period 11-07-2013 to 31-03-2016.

¶31

Hence above writ petition may kindly be disposed off by modifying the order passed by the 2^nd respondent and as confirmed by the first respondent.”

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:40314 WP No. 58684 of 2017

¶33

4. Respondent No.3 restricts his claim in terms of

¶34

the memo, and seeking to calculate the gratuity in terms of the Act, in light of the same, the gratuity payable to respondent No.3 by taking five years of his service under the Act is as under:

¶35

Rs.12,334/-x 5 x 15/26 = Rs.35,578/-

¶36

The petitioner-Corporation wants to treat the

¶37

absence as break in service of the employee, when any establishment wants to treat any period as a break in service of the employee under Section 2A (2) of the Act, the Corporation has to pass order to the knowledge of the employee and in compliance with the principles of natural justice, merely, by deducting the period in its service registers, it cannot be treated as break in service, and in the instant case, as there is no order passed under Section 2A(2) of the Act, the said contention of the petitionerCorporation is not available to be raised before this Court.

¶38

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:40314 WP No. 58684 of 2017

¶39

6. Respondent No.3 is entitled for gratuity of

¶40

Rs.35,578/- with interest @ 10% p.a. from 11.07.2013 to 31.03.2016 and the orders passed by the authorities is liable to be modified and this Court pass the following:

¶41

ORDER

¶42

i. Writ petition is allowed-in-part.

¶43

ii. Respondent No.3 is entitled for gratuity of Rs.35,578/- with interest @ 10% p.a. from 11.07.2013 to 31.03.2016.

¶44

iii. Respondent No.2 is directed to release the amount as ordered at operative portion No.ii forthwith and the remaining amount to be disbursed to the Corporation.

¶45

Sd/(K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE

¶46

MBM/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30

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

Smt. Razika Begum Vs Sri. Rehamathulla Khan

The Employes Sparr Group of Companies Vs M/s. Sparr Equipment Limited

Yashwanth Kumar @Yashwanth Deekshith Vs the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation

Sri Mudda Vs Smt Lakshmamma

Smt Radha Vs Deepak

Sri Gopalareddy Vs the State of Karnataka