Dismissed¶135

Sri Mir Mushruff Ali v. the Divisional Controller

Karnataka HC13 Nov 2025RFA/1517/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Recovery of excess/double-paid gratuity by KSRTC from retired conductor (retired 31.08.2004); maintainability of money-recovery suit under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 — Sections 8 and 13 held inapplicable; finality of unchallenged Controlling Authority order Ex.P-1 dated 26.05.2011 (Rs.1,70,719/-); Section 7(7) deposit of Rs.1,15,381/- withdrawn by workman; recovery of Rs.1,14,402/- excess affirmed; Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala, Civil Appeal No.7115/2010 dated 02.05.2022 distinguished; RFA under Section 96 CPC dismissed (NC: 2025:KHC:46671).

What did the court decide?

No relief to the appellant; the judgment and decree dated 27.04.2019 in O.S.No.3954/2012 (recovery of Rs.1,14,402/- excess gratuity) stand confirmed; decree to be drawn accordingly; no costs. ¶135

Sri Mir Mushruff Ali Vs the Divisional Controller — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the appellant; the judgment and decree dated 27.04.2019 in O.S.No.3954/2012 (recovery of Rs.1,14,402/- excess gratuity) stand confirmed; decree to be drawn accordingly; no costs.

¶135

Issue for consideration

Point (1): Whether the plaintiff established that the defendant received the excess amount of Rs.1,14,402/- towards gratuity and is liable to make good that recovery. +3 more

¶74

Court's answer

The Controlling Authority's order Ex.P-1 dated 26.05.2011 re-determining gratuity at Rs.1,70,719/- has attained finality: though the defendant did not appear (as evident from Ex.P-3 order sheet) and contends it was ex parte, he never challenged that order despite knowledge, including after the legal notice Ex.P-2.

¶93

Ratio / Principle

Sections 8 and 13 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 are inapplicable and the suit is maintainable: Section 8 provides the employee's remedy where the employer fails to pay gratuity, whereas gratuity as determined was duly paid here; Section 13 only protects gratuity from attachment in civil/revenue/criminal recovery proceedings, whereas this is a simple money-recovery suit for gratuity paid twice to the defendant.

¶121

Key takeaways

It is admitted that the defendant received gratuity twice: Rs.1,69,740/- soon after retirement on 31.08.2004 and Rs.1,15,381/- (the amount deposited by the Corporation under Section 7(7) while appealing), which is not in dispute.ratio¶129
Against the finally determined gratuity of Rs.1,70,719/- (total receipts Rs.2,85,121/-), the defendant received an excess of Rs.1,14,402/-; the Controlling Authority granted liberty to recover it, founding the plaintiff's suit, and the trial court correctly appreciated these facts.ratio¶132
Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala (where excess payment resulted from a mistake in interpreting the Kerala Services Rules and recovery was declined) is distinguished: here the excess was not paid by misinterpreting any provision of law but resulted from the calculation/double receipt of gratuity, so the bar against recovery does not apply despite the defendant being a senior citizen retired about 20 years.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

KSRTC sued its retired conductor to recover excess gratuity; the XI Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru decreed the suit in O.S.No.3954/2012 (judgment and decree dated 27.04.2019) and the defendant's Regular First Appeal failed. Held: (1) the Controlling Authority's post-writ-remand order Ex.P-1 dated 26.05.2011 fixing gratuity at Rs.1,70,719/- attained finality, the defendant never challenging it despite knowledge, his non-appearance being evident from Ex.P-3; (2) Sections 8 and 13 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 do not bar the suit — Section 8 addresses an employer's failure to pay gratuity and Section 13 only shields gratuity from attachment in civil/revenue/criminal recovery proceedings, whereas here gratuity as determined was paid and the suit is a simple recovery of money paid twice; (3) the defendant admittedly drew gratuity twice — Rs.1,69,740/- on superannuation (31.08.2004) and the Rs.1,15,381/- deposited under Section 7(7) during the first appeal — totalling Rs.2,85,121/- against the determined Rs.1,70,719/-, leaving Rs.1,14,402/- recoverable, for which the Controlling Authority granted liberty; (4) Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala (recovery refused where excess flowed from mistaken interpretation of the Kerala Services Rules) was distinguished, the excess here arising from double receipt and calculation, not misreading of law. Point 1 answered affirmatively, Points 2 and 3 negatively; appeal dismissed, decree confirmed, no costs.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:46671 RFA No. 1517 of 2019

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶7

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1517 OF 2019 (MON)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. MIR. MUSHRUFF ALI S/O LATE SRI MIR ABBAS HUSSAIN AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS R/AT NO 621, BEHIND POST OFFICE, SUNKADAKATTE, VISHWANEEDAM POST, MAGADI ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 091

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. SOMA SUNDER RAO R, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER BENGALURU CENTRAL DIVISION, K S R T C. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER SRI. SHIVAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

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

¶17

THIS RFA FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.04.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.3954/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE BANGALORE CITY, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY.

¶18

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUEMNTS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶20

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC:46671 RFA No. 1517 of 2019

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

This appeal is filed by the defendant challenging the judgment and decree dated 27.04.2019 passed by the Court of XI Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, in O.S.No.3954/2012, thereby, the suit filed for recovery of money is decreed.

¶25

The rank of parties is referred to as per their

¶26

rankings before the trial court.

¶27

It is the case of plaintiff as per plaint averments in brief that the plaintiff is a transport corporation and the defendant was appointed as a Conductor and retired from the service on 31.08.2004 after attaining the age of superannuation. At the time of retirement, the defendant has received gratuity amount of ₹1,69,740/-.

¶28

The defendant has filed an application before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Controlling Authority, Bengaluru, under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short ‘the Act’) claiming a sum of ₹1,61,644/- towards

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:46671 RFA No. 1517 of 2019

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

difference in gratuity. On 12.09.2007 the Controlling Authority determined the gratuity payable to the defendant at ₹2,24,050/- after deducting a sum of ₹1,69,740/- already paid and ordered to pay balance of ₹1,04,310/- with interest for 3 years at ₹31,293/- p.a., totally ₹1,35,603/-.

¶32

Both plaintiff and the defendant preferred the appeals before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority allowed the appeal filed by the defendant and dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and after deducting the amount already paid of ₹1,69,740/-, the gratuity was re-determined at ₹2,83,500/- and directed to pay balance of ₹1,13,760/- with interest at 10% p.a.

¶33

It is the case of the plaintiff that while preferring the appeal the plaintiff has deposited a sum of ₹1,15,381/- as per Section 7 of the Act. Against the order passed by the Appellate Authority on 26.06.2008 three writ petitions were filed in W.P.No.10836/2008 by the

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:46671 RFA No. 1517 of 2019

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

Corporation and the workman has filed W.P.No.12180/2008 and W.P.No.11914/2008. This Court on 09.03.2009 has allowed all the writ petitions by passing

¶37

common order and remanded the matters to the Controlling Authority to determine the gratuity afresh. After remand, the Controlling Authority on 26.05.2011 has re-determined the gratuity at ₹1,70,719/- after deducting a sum of ₹1,69,740/-, which was already paid and it was ordered the balance of ₹979/- to be payable to the defendant, but the defendant had already withdrawn the amount of ₹1,15,381/-, which was the amount deposited by the plaintiff while preferring the appeal before the appellate authority. Therefore, the defendant has received the amount twice totaling to amount of Rs.2,85,121/- and therefore, this is observed by the Controlling Authority in its order. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of money.

¶38

The defendant has filed the written statement

¶39

denying all the averments made in the plaint. It is

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:46671 RFA No. 1517 of 2019

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

contended that the defendant has correctly received the amount and there is no double claim made by the defendant or there is no excess amount received by the defendant and whatever the defendant is entitled to receive the gratuity amount, the same has been received. Therefore prays to dismiss the suit.

¶43

Upon pleadings, the trial court has framed the

¶44

following issues:

¶45

(1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant is liable to pay the amount of Rs.1,14,402/- as stated in para No.6 of the plaint?

¶46

(2) Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

¶47

(3) Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction to try the suit in view of Sec.13 of Payment of Gratuity Act 1972?

¶48

(4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the amount of Rs.1,14,402/along with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of suit till realization?

¶49

(5) What order or decree?

¶50

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC:46671 RFA No. 1517 of 2019

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

The official of the plaintiff/Corporation was examined as PW1 and produced documents and got them marked as Exs.P-1 to P-4. The defendant is examined as DW1 and produced documents, which are marked as Exs.D-1 to D-6.

¶54

The trial court after assessing the evidence on record had found that the gratuity amount determined by the Controlling Authority at Rs.1,70,719/- has attained finality. At the time of retirement of the defendant on 31.08.2004, the defendant was paid an amount Rs.1,69,740/- and subsequently when a dispute arose for re-determining the gratuity amount, the plaintiff has filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority and has deposited a sum of Rs.1,15,381/-, which was withdrawn by the defendant. Therefore, the defendant has received the gratuity amount in excess and accepting the case of the plaintiff, the trial court has decreed the suit.

¶55

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:46671 RFA No. 1517 of 2019

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

Being aggrieved by decreeing the suit the defendant preferred an appeal by raising various grounds in the memorandum of appeal and the learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that the suit is not maintainable for recovery of money in the case of gratuity amount. He places reliance on Section 8 of the Act. Further submitted that as per Section 13 of the Act protection is given to employee for making attachment of the gratuity amount. Therefore, submitted that the suit is not maintainable. Further submitted that the Controlling Authority while passing the order - Ex.P-1 has not issued notice to the defendant and it was an exparte order. Therefore, the suit filed based on Ex.P-1 is not correct.

¶58

Further submitted that as per Ex.D-5 the defendant has filed an application seeking to withdraw the amount and the same is allowed by the Controlling Authority and paid the amount for which the defendant could not be found fault with. Therefore, submitted that anyway the defendant has not received any excess

¶59

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:46671 RFA No. 1517 of 2019

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

amount. Hence, the suit filed is frivolous one and this is not considered by the trial court correctly. Hence, prays to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree.

¶62

Learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent submitted that the issue regarding maintainability of the suit is already determined as Issue No.3 and the said finding on maintainability of the suit has attained finality and that cannot be reagitated in this appeal, as the defendant has not preferred any appeal as against the finding on Issue No.3. Further submitted that Section 8 of the Act is applicable to the employee in case the gratuity amount is not paid by the employer, but here the suit is for recovery of excess money received by the defendant and hence, there is no question of non-payment of gratuity is concerned by the plaintiff/respondent. Hence, Section 8 of the Act is not applicable.

¶63

¶64

NC: 2025:KHC:46671 RFA No. 1517 of 2019

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

Further submitted that Section 13 of the Act is

¶67

also not applicable as the present suit is not for any attachment in execution of any decree, but the suit is for recovery of money of excess amount paid as gratuity. Therefore, submitted Section 13 of the Act is also not applicable.

¶68

Further by filing the synopsis in this regard, submitted that the calculation made by the Controlling Authority in Ex.P-1 is correct, which has attained finality as the defendant has not preferred any appeal despite having knowledge that the order at Ex.P-1 is passed. Therefore, based on the order passed by the Controlling Authority as per Ex.P-1, the suit is filed as liberty is granted by the Controlling Authority. Therefore, justified the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶69

10 -

¶70

NC: 2025:KHC:46671 RFA No. 1517 of 2019

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

Upon hearing the submissions of learned

¶73

counsel for both sides, the following points would arise for consideration are:

¶74

(1) Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the plaintiff is able to establish that the defendant has received the excess amount of Rs.1,14,402/- towards gratuity and thus, the plaintiff is liable to recovery the said excess amount?

¶75

(2) Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the defendant is able to establish that he has not received the excess gratuity amount?

¶76

(3) Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the judgment and decree passed by the trial court requires any interference by this Court?

¶77

It is an admitted fact that the defendant was

¶78

working as a conductor under the plaintiff/Corporation and

¶79

retired from the service on 31.08.2004. It is also not in dispute that soon after retirement from the service the

¶80

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:46671 RFA No. 1517 of 2019

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

defendant has received an amount of Rs.1,69,740/-. The dispute is regarding the difference in payment of gratuity amount is concerned. The defendant has filed an application before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and Controlling Authority, Bangalore, under the Act claiming a sum of Rs.1,61,644/- towards difference in gratuity. Therefore, according to the defendant the plaintiff had to pay another sum of Rs.1,61,644/- apart from the amount of Rs.1,69,704/-, which has already been paid.

¶83

The Controlling Authority on 12.09.2007 has redetermined the gratuity at Rs.2,24,050/- after deducting a sum of Rs.1,69,740/-, which has already been paid and thus, held balance amount at Rs.1,04,310/- by adding interest for 3 years thereon and ordered to pay the balance amount of Rs.1,35,603/-. These facts are not disputed by the plaintiff and the defendant.

¶84

Against the determination of gratuity of Rs.2,24,050/- the plaintiff has preferred an appeal before

¶85

12 - NC: 2025:KHC:46671 RFA No. 1517 of 2019

¶86

HC-KAR

¶87

the Appellate Authority and at the time of filing the appeal, as required under Section 7(7) of the Act, the plaintiff/Corporation has deposited the amount of Rs.1,15,381/-. During the pending adjudication of the appeal the defendant withdrew the said amount of Rs.1,15,381/-, which is not in dispute. Therefore, it is admitted fact that the defendant has received an amount of Rs.1,69,740/-, which was soon after retirement from the service and a sum of Rs.1,15,381/- when the plaintiff has preferred the Appellate Authority questioning the order passed dated 12.09.2007.

¶88

Against the order passed by the Controlling Authority the plaintiff has filed a W.P.No.10836/2008 and workman had filed W.P.No.12180/2008 and the defendant has filed the W.P.No.11914/2008 claiming interest at 18% p.a. from the date of retirement. This Court has allowed all the writ petitions and set aside the order of Appellate Authority and Controlling Authority and the remanded to

¶89

13 -

¶90

NC: 2025:KHC:46671 RFA No. 1517 of 2019

¶91

HC-KAR

¶92

Controlling Authority with a direction to re-determine the gratuity amount.

¶93

The Controlling Authority after remanding the case from this Court has adjudicated and re-determined the gratuity and held that the defendant is entitled to total gratuity amount of Rs.1,70,719/-. Though the defendant is contending that the order - Ex.P-1 is exparte order, but that was not challenged before the Appellate Authority. With reference to Ex.P-3 - order sheet maintained by the Controlling Authority it is evident that the defendant has not appeared, but the fact that the defendant has not challenged the said Ex.P-1 - order has attained finality.

¶94

Ex.P-2 is the legal notice dated 27.01.2012 issued by the plaintiff/Corporation to the defendant intimating the recovery of excess amount by stating that the Controlling Authority has passed order as per Ex.P-1, but inspite of it the defendant has not filed any appeal

¶95

14 -

¶96

NC: 2025:KHC:46671 RFA No. 1517 of 2019

¶97

HC-KAR

¶98

against the order passed as per Ex.P-1. Therefore, the

¶99

order passed as per Ex.P-1 has attained finality.

¶100

In Ex.P-1 the Controlling Authority has re-

¶101

determined the gratuity amount of Rs.1,70,719/- on 26.05.2011. Therefore, despite defendant having knowledge regarding the order passed as per Ex.P-1, the defendant has accepted the same. In Ex.P-1 the Controlling Authority has in detail assessed the amount of gratuity and observed that the defendant has received the amount twice on the guise of gratuity of Rs.1,69,740/- and a sum of Rs.1,15,381/-, therefore held that the defendant has received an excess amount of Rs.1,14,402/-. Therefore, liberty is reserved to the plaintiff /Corporation to recover the said amount and as such the suit filed by the plaintiff is maintainable.

¶102

Sections 8 and 13 of the Act read as follows:

¶103

“ 8. Notice for payment of gratuity. -- (1) Within fifteen days of the receipt of an application under Rule 7 for payment of gratuity, the employer shall:

¶104

15 - NC: 2025:KHC:46671 RFA No. 1517 of 2019

¶105

HC-KAR

¶106

(i) If the claim is found admissible on verification, issue a notice in Form `L' to the applicant employee, nominee or legal heir, as the case may be, specifying the amount of gratuity payable and fixing a date, not being later than the thirtieth day after the date of receipt of the application, for payment thereof, or

¶107

(ii) If the claim for gratuity is not found admissible, issue a notice in Form ‘M’ to the applicant employee, nominee or legal heir, as the case may be, specifying the reasons why the claim for gratuity is not considered admissible.

¶108

In either case a copy of the notice shall be endorsed to the controlling authority.

¶109

(2) In case payment of gratuity is due to be made in the employer's office, the date fixed for the purpose in the notice in Form ‘L’ under Clause (i) of sub-rule (1) shall be re fixed by the employer, if a written application in this behalf is made by the payee explaining why it is not possible for him to be present in person on the date specified.

¶110

(3) If the claimant for gratuity is a nominee or a legal heir, the employer may ask for such witness or evidence as may be deemed relevant for establishing his identity or maintainability of his claim, as the case may be. In that case, the time limit specified for issuance of notice under sub-rule (1) shall be operative with effect from the date such witness or evidence, as the case may be, called for by the employer is furnished to the employer.

¶111

(4) A notice in Form ‘L’ or Form ‘M’ shall be served on the applicant either by personal service after taking receipt or by registered post with acknowledgement due.

¶112

(5) A notice under sub-section (2) of Section 7 shall be in Form ‘L’.”

¶113

“ 13. Administration of oath.-- The controlling authority may authorise a clerk of his office to administer oaths for the purpose of making affidavits .”

¶114

16 - NC: 2025:KHC:46671 RFA No. 1517 of 2019

¶115

HC-KAR

¶116

The submission made by the learned counsel

¶117

for the defendant that as per Sections 8 and 13 of the Act,

¶118

the suit is not maintainable does not hold the water since Section 8 is relating to where employer fails to pay gratuity and remedy provided to the employee to file an application before Controlling Authority for claiming gratuity. Likewise, Section 13 of the Act provides protection of gratuity in case in any proceedings of recovery of money in any suit in the nature of civil, revenue or criminal, the amount of gratuity shall not be attached. Under the facts and circumstances of the present case, as above stated, these two provisions are not applicable as the remedies are under different circumstances. In the present case, it is not the case that the plaintiff has not paid the gratuity but the plaintiff has paid gratuity as determined by the Controlling Authority. Hence, there is no question of non-payment of gratuity so as to apply Section 8 of the Act. Furthermore, the plaintiff’s claim is not in civil, revenue or criminal

¶119

17 - NC: 2025:KHC:46671 RFA No. 1517 of 2019

¶120

HC-KAR

¶121

proceedings to recover the amount in any other case so as to recover the amount by making attachment of the gratuity amount. But here the instant suit is simply for recovery of money as the amount is paid twice to the defendant. Therefore, the excess amount paid in the name of gratuity and recovery of the same, the suit is filed. Therefore, Sections 8 and 13 of the Act are not applicable as argued by the counsel for the appellant/defendant.

¶122

Further learned counsel for the

¶123

appellant/defendant places reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of THOMAS DANIEL v. STATE OF KERALA & ORS.¹ and argued that even if the defendant has received the amount in excess, but the defendant is a Senior Citizen and retired from the service 20 years before, therefore at this advanced age the amount cannot be recovered.

¶124

1 Civil Appeal No.7115/2010 dated 02.05.2022

¶125

18 -

¶126

NC: 2025:KHC:46671 RFA No. 1517 of 2019

¶127

HC-KAR

¶128

In the above said judgment namely, Thomas

¶129

Daniel’s case the crux are that the Corporation has made excess payment due to mistake in interpreting Kerala Services Rules, which was subsequently pointed out by the Accountant General. Therefore, under these circumstances, the Hon’ble Apex Court has ordered that it is not appropriate to recover the excess amount paid to the employee, but in the present case the excess amount paid is not by misinterpreting any of the provision of the law, but it is only the calculation made in determining the gratuity amount. In the present case, admittedly the defendant has received the gratuity amount twice. One is, Rs.1,69,740/- soon after retirement from the service and for second time, the defendant has received a sum of Rs.1,15,381/-, which was the amount deposited by the plaintiff/Corporation while preferring the appeal against the order of the Controlling Authority. Therefore, the plaintiff has received an amount of Rs.2,85,121/- towards gratuity. But as per order - Ex.P-1 dated 26.05.2011 the

¶130

19 - NC: 2025:KHC:46671 RFA No. 1517 of 2019

¶131

HC-KAR

¶132

Controlling Authority has finally determined the gratuity payable is Rs.1,70,719/-. Therefore, on these circumstances, the Controlling Authority has passed order as per Ex.P-1 holding that the defendant has received a sum of Rs.1,14,402/- in excess and accordingly granted liberty to recover the same as per law and that is why the plaintiff has filed the suit. Therefore, all these facts and circumstances are correctly appreciated by the trial court and delivered the judgment, which is perfectly found to be justifiable and legal. Therefore, there is no need to make any interference in the judgment and decree of the trial court. Accordingly, I answer Point No.(1) in the affirmative and Point Nos.(2) and (3) in the negative.

¶133

For the reasons aforestated, I proceed to pass the following:

¶134

ORDER

¶135

(1) The appeal is dismissed .

¶136

(2) The judgment and decree dated 27.04.2019 passed by the Court of XI Addl. City Civil

¶137

NC: 2025:KHC:46671 RFA No. 1517 of 2019

¶138

20 -

¶139

HC-KAR

¶140

Judge, Bangalore City, in O.S.No.3954/2012, is confirmed.

¶141

(3) Draw the decree accordingly.

¶142

(4) No costs.

¶143

SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE

¶144

¶145

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment and decree dated 27.04.2019 decreeing O.S.No.3954/2012, a suit by the KSRTC plaintiff against its retired conductor-defendant for recovery of money (excess gratuity).¶24
Court of XI Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore City · 27.04.2019
Prior proceeding
Defendant applied to the Assistant Labour Commissioner/Controlling Authority, Bengaluru under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 claiming Rs.1,61,644/- towards difference in gratuity.¶28
Prior proceeding
Controlling Authority order dated 12.09.2007: gratuity determined at Rs.2,24,050/-; after deducting Rs.1,69,740/- already paid, balance Rs.1,04,310/- with 3 years' interest at Rs.31,293/- p.a., totally Rs.1,35,603/-.¶31
Prior proceeding
Appeals before the Appellate Authority: defendant's appeal allowed, Corporation's appeal dismissed; gratuity re-determined at Rs.2,83,500/-; Rs.1,13,760/- with 10% p.a. interest directed to be paid.¶32
Prior proceeding
While filing the appeal the plaintiff deposited Rs.1,15,381/- as required under Section 7(7) of the Act; the defendant withdrew that amount during adjudication.¶33
Prior proceeding
Writ petitions — W.P.No.10836/2008 by the Corporation and W.P.Nos.12180/2008 and 11914/2008 by the workman — were allowed by common order dated 09.03.2009; orders of the Appellate and Controlling Authorities set aside and matters remanded to the Controlling Authority for fresh determination.¶36
Prior proceeding
After remand, the Controlling Authority on 26.05.2011 (Ex.P-1) re-determined gratuity at Rs.1,70,719/-; observing the defendant had already withdrawn the Rs.1,15,381/- and thus received amounts twice totalling Rs.2,85,121/-, it reserved liberty to the plaintiff to recover.¶37
Prior proceeding
Legal notice dated 27.01.2012 (Ex.P-2) issued by the Corporation demanding recovery of the excess amount; defendant filed no appeal against Ex.P-1.¶94
Prior proceeding
At trial, the Corporation's official was examined as PW1 (Exs.P-1 to P-4) and the defendant as DW1 (Exs.D-1 to D-6).¶53
Prior proceeding
Trial court held the Controlling Authority's determination of Rs.1,70,719/- attained finality, found the defendant had received gratuity in excess, and decreed the suit.¶54

Sri Mir Mushruff Ali v. the Divisional Controller

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Mir Mushruff Ali v. the Divisional Controller

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G. S. Vijay Kumar Vs G. H. Sharanappa

Sri K T Venkateshnarayana @ Venkatesh Vs Sri S Lokesh

The Deputy Director Vs M/S Xyka Hotels India Private Limited

Sri. Ramula Sannidhi Vs Mrs. Sonia Haresh

Rohit Bhaskar Naik Vs Kare Prosthetics and Orthotics

Smt. Siddagangamma Vs Sri. Rangaswamy