B N Subbaiah Vs the Division Controller

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:19959 WP No. 15118 of 2016

¶2

1 -

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 15118 OF 2016 (L-KSRTC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

B N SUBBAIAH, S/O LATE NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT NO.2/549, 2^ND STAGE, VINAYAKA EXTENSION, K.R. NAGAR, MYSORE DISTRICT. (SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFITS NOT CLIAMED)

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI SOMASUNDER RAO R, ADVOCATE FOR SRI LAKSHMAN RAO, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE DIVISION CONTROLLER, KSRTC, MYSORE RURAL DIVISION, BANNIMANTAPA ROAD, MYSORE-570017.

¶14

THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER & CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE P.G. ACT OF 1972, LABOUR DEPARTMENT, MYSORE DIVISION, KUVEMPU NAGAR, MYSORE - 570017.

¶15

DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER & APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER P.G. ACT, 1972, REGION 2 KARMIKA BHAVAN, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560029.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SMT H R RENUKA, ADVOCATE FOR R1, SRI PRINCE ISAC, AGA FOR R2 AND R3)

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:19959 WP No. 15118 of 2016

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO MODIFY THE IMPUGNED ORDERS PASSED BY THE R-2 & 3 I.E., CONTROLLING AUTHORITY AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY DATED 30.08.2013 VIDE AN DTHE ORDER PASSED DATED 23.10.2014 AT ANNEX-A AND B RESPECTIVELY AND ETC.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

This petition is filed by the workman assailing the order dated 30.08.2013 passed by the Controlling Authority and order dated 23.10.2014 passed by the Appellate Authority.

¶25

The petitioner has also sought writ of mandamus to direct first respondent to pay Rs.1,03,341/along with interest at 10% p.a. from the due date till the payment.

¶26

The petitioner was employee of respondent No.1/Corporation and joined services on 03.04.1975 and attained superannuation in the year 1989. The

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:19959 WP No. 15118 of 2016

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

respondent No.1 paid the service benefits including the gratuity in the year 1989 itself. However, in the year 2010, the petitioner claimed higher amount on the premise that on earlier occasion the gratuity payable to him was not properly calculated and petitioner was paid less amount.

¶30

The Controlling Authority overruling the objection of the respondent No.1/Corporation directed payment of Rs.12,877/- along with interest at 10% p.a. from the due date till payment. The claim of the petitioner/employee was partly rejected.

¶31

The petitioner filed an appeal before the

¶32

Appellate Authority so also the respondent/employer.

¶33

In terms of the impugned order dated 23.10.2014, both the appeals are dismissed confirming the order passed by the Controlling Authority. The respondent No.1/Corporation has accepted the award passed by the Appellate Authority. The petitioner is before this Court

¶34

4 -

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:19959 WP No. 15118 of 2016

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

assailing the order passed by the Appellate Authority on the premise that he is entitled to higher amount.

¶38

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶39

would contend that the dearness allowance is not taken into account while calculating the gratuity payable to him as such, he would contend that the impugned order has to be set-aside and the respondent No.1 should be directed to pay higher amount as prayed in the writ petition.

¶40

Learned counsel appearing for the

¶41

respondent/Corporation would contend that a similar issue was dealt by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.100202/2015 and has held that the employees are not entitled to claim gratuity by taking into account the dearness allowance as contended by the petitioner. It is further submitted that order in W.A. No.100202/2015 is assailed before the Apex Court in SLP No.4744/2020 and

¶42

the Apex Court has dismissed the SLP. Referring to the said order, it is submitted that the contention raised by

¶43

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:19959 WP No. 15118 of 2016

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

the petitioner is answered against the petitioner in the aforementioned orders.

¶46

This Court has considered the contentions

¶47

raised at the bar and perused the records.

¶48

The orders passed in W.A. No.100202/2015 and in SLP No.4744/2020 are not in dispute. In the aforementioned proceedings, the contention raised by the workman which are similar to the contentions raised by the petitioner are rejected.

¶49