A dismissed KSRTC conductor applied for gratuity difference nearly eight years after gratuity was paid. The Controlling Authority rejected it on delay grounds; the Appellate Authority confirmed. The High Court upheld both authorities' reliance on the 90-day rule and dismissed the writ petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:27173 WP No. 7105 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 7105 OF 2020 (L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
J.H.SHIVARAMA REDDY S/O LATE HANUMANTHA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/A JANAKOLOTY, I.D.HALLI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M.C.BASAVARAJU., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: High Court of Karnataka
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.P.YOGANNA., AGA FOR R1; SRI. B.L.SANJEEV., ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.
NC: 2024:KHC:27173 WP No. 7105 of 2020
THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Sri.M.C.Basavaraju., learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.K.P.Yoganna., learned AGA for respondent No.1, and Sri.B.L.Sanjeev., learned counsel for respondent No.2 appeared in person.
NC: 2024:KHC:27173 WP No. 7105 of 2020
eight years. The Controlling Authority vide order dated 19.11.2016 dismissed the application on the grounds of delay and laches. Aggrieved by the order of the Controlling Authority, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, the Appellate Authority vide order dated 30.11.2019 confirmed the order of the Controlling Authority.
the application on the grounds of delay and laches. The Appellate Authority is also justified in confirming the order of the Controlling Authority. In my view, the Gratuity Authorities are justified in rejecting the application. I find no grounds to
NC: 2024:KHC:27173 WP No. 7105 of 2020
interfere with the orders of the Gratuity Authority. For the reasons stated above, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and
it is liable to be dismissed.
6. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is dismissed .
Sd/JUDGE
TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a gratuity claim application filed about eight years after payment should be accepted despite Rule 10's 90-day timeframe with provision for sufficient cause?
3 provisions across 3 enactments
J.H.Shivarama Reddy
Assistant Labour Commissioner and Appellate Authority, Division-IV
The Divisional Controller, K.S.R.T.C., Bangalore Central Division
Jyoti Mulimani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
