Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs the Deputy Labour Commissioner and the Appellate Authority

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:30534 WP No. 3208 of 2021

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶5

BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3208 OF 2021 (L-KSRTC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION

¶8

REP BY THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION CENTRAL DIVISION K.H.ROAD, BANGALORE-560027 NOW REP BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION CENTRAL OFFICES, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560027

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. R.B.ANEPPANAVAR.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT Digitally signed REGION-4, KARMEEKA BHAVANA by BANERGHATTA ROAD, GAVRIBIDANUR BANGALORE-560029. SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH 2. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER Location: HIGH COURT OF AND CONTROLLIN AUTHORITY KARNATAKA UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT 1972 DIVISION-4, KARMEEKA BHAVANA, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE-560029.

¶13

SRI.CHIKKATHIMMAIAH SRI.CHIKKATHIMMAIAH, EX-DRIVER

¶14

2 -

¶15

NC: 2025:KHC:30534 WP No. 3208 of 2021

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

S/O LATE THIMMAIAH, AGED 67 YEARS, R/AT NO.1ST CROSS, DODDAGOLLARATHATTI BANGALORE-560027.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.RAMESH NAIK, AGA FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2.,SRI.LEELESH KRISHNA ADV FOR SRI NAGENDRA.T. ADV FOR R3) THIS W.P FILED PRAYING TOCALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS ON THE FILE OF LEARNED LABOUR OFFICER AND GRATUITY CONTROLLING AUTHORITY DVN NO.4 BENGALURU CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORD ON THE FILE OF APPELLATE AUTHORITY BENGALURU DVN-4 QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD.31.1.2020 PASSED THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY BANGALORE DVN-4 BENGALURU ANNEXED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-ACONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD.22.3.2019 PASSED THE LEARNED LABOUR OFFICER AND GRATUITY CONTROLLING AUTHORITY DVN-4 BENGALURU IN DV-4 BENGLAURU ANNEXED AND MARKED AS ANNXUREBGRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY THE OPERATION AND EXECUTION OF THIS ORDER DTD.31.1.2020 PASSED BY THE R-1 MARKED AS ANENXURE-A AND THE ORDER DTD.22.3.2019 PASSED BY THE R-2 MARKED AS ANNEXURE-B.

¶19

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

This petition is filed by the KSRTC (Corporation) to

¶22

quash the impugned order dated 31.01.2020 passed by the respondent No.1 - Appellate Authority Bangalore,

¶23

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:30534 WP No. 3208 of 2021

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

Division - 4 in ALC-4/PGA/CR-04/2019-20 at Annexure 'A'

¶26

and to quash the impugned order dated 22.03.2019 passed by the respondent No.2 - Controlling Authority, Bengaluru, Division-4 in PGA/CR-75/2016-17 at Annexure 'B'.

¶27

The petitioner is a Corporation engaged in running and maintenance of a State-wide Network of passenger transportation by road on a no-loss no profit basis. It is the case of petitioner that Respondent No.3 was taken on service on 16.12.1989 and he took voluntary retirement from service after completing 23 years, one month and 15 days of service in the Corporation. Out of

¶28

the said period of service, Respondent No.3 remained absent for a period of 5 years, 2 months and 10 days and therefore, his active service was taken as 17 years 11 months and 5 days and the Corporation has paid the gratuity on the basis of his active service, subsequent to his retirement. The last basic drawn by Respondent No.3 while in service was Rs.13,760/-. Based on the

¶29

4 -

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:30534 WP No. 3208 of 2021

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

calculation of the gratuity in accordance with the regulation, the Respondent No.3 was paid Rs.2,46,533/-.

¶33

2.1 It is further case of petitioner that Respondent No.3 not being satisfied with the gratuity amount paid by the Corporation, filed a claim petition before the Labour Officer and Gratuity Controlling Authority. The Controlling Authority without considering the fact of break-in service and the delay in raising the dispute, allowed the dispute on 22.3.2019, thereby directing the Corporation to pay an amount of Rs.1,66,267/-, difference of the amount along with interest at 10% from 21.7.2016 till the date of deposit.

¶34

2.2 Aggrieved by the order of the Controlling Authority, the Corporation preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority - Assistant Labour Commissioner. The Appellate Authority without considering the objections raised by the Corporation with regard to the delay in filing and the break-in service, rejected the appeal and

¶35

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:30534 WP No. 3208 of 2021

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

confirmed the order of the Controlling Authority by an order dated 31.1.2020.

¶38

2.3 The Corporation being aggrieved by the order of

¶39

the appellate authority dated 31.1.2020 and the order dated 22.3.2019 passed by Respondent No.2, is before this Court.

¶40

It is the vehement contention of learned counsel - Sri R.B. Aneppanavar that the order passed by Respondent Nos.1 and 2 is perverse, erroneous, contrary to the facts

¶41

and documents on record and hence the same is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. He further contends that both Respondent Nos.1 and 2 failed to take into consideration and appreciate the fact that Respondent No.3/employee had joined the petitioner - Corporation as

¶42

'Badli' on 13.1.1983, which was admitted by the Management witness during the cross-examination, but

¶43

the same is totally brushed aside by Respondent Nos.1 and 2. It is also contended that the Respondent No.3 has challenged his dismissal in W.P. No.1159/1986 after the

¶44

6 -

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:30534 WP No. 3208 of 2021

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

delay of 3 years and he was reinstated on 16.12.1989 as

¶48

per the directions in the said writ petition and an undertaking was given by Respondent No.3 that he would not claim backwages or continuity of service, which aspect has not been considered and ignored by Respondent Nos.1 and 2. It is also contended by learned counsel for petitioner that Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not taken into consideration the fact that no documents were produced by Respondent No.3 to show that he was continuously working from 13.1.1983 till 16.12.1989 so also no salary slip was produced. Hence, on this ground also the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. It is further contended by learned counsel for petitioner that the finding of break-in service has not been considered in the impugned order. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed.

¶49

Per contra, learned Additional Government

¶50

Advocate representing the State and learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submits that the workman sustains

¶51

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:30534 WP No. 3208 of 2021

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

the impugned order on the ground that break in service will not affect the order of the Appellate Authority and the

¶54

order of the Controlling Authority, since, there is no specific order passed under Section 2A of the payment of Gratuity Act 1972. The order passed is sustainable and does not call for interference. He has relied upon the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WP.No.9091/2021 and in WP.No.202486/2017.

¶55

The said arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 are concurred with by the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶56

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

¶57

The present case is squarely covered by the judgment of Co-ordinate benches of this Court in two judgments which is relied upon herein, stated supra. Therefore, when there is a break in service, the order under Section 2A of the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972

¶58

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:30534 WP No. 3208 of 2021

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

ought to have been passed by the Corporation. Under the present facts and circumstances, admittedly no such order is passed. It is not in dispute by either of the parties and no such order is produced before this Court.

¶61

Therefore, I am in agreement with the learned counsel for the respondents that the impugned order does not call for any interference and there is a uniformity in the order passed by the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority.

¶62

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order.

¶63

O R D E R

¶64

i) The writ petition is dismissed .

¶65

ii) The Controlling Authority shall disburse and release the amount in favour of the respondent No.3 - workman within a period two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

¶66