The Social Welfare Vs Sri Nijaguna Murthy

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 13.06.2016 PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER

¶21

2 -

¶22

NC: 2025:KHC:19700 WP No. 9245 of 2018

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

AND CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PROVISION OF PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, MYSURU DIVISION, MYSURU, VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶29

The petitioner has assailed the order passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner. In terms of the order dated 13.06.2016, the Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, has directed the petitioner to pay gratuity by reckoning his date of employment as 01.10.1983 instead of 30.09.1993 as contended by the State.

¶30

The petitioner-State contends that though the petitioner was appointed on 01.10.1983, the said appointment was not a regular employment. He was employed as a daily wager. However, his services were regularized in terms of order dated 30.09.1993 and from that date, he is entitled to the service benefits and the Competent Authority erred in

¶31

3 -

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:19700 WP No. 9245 of 2018

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

holding that the petitioner is entitled to service benefits with effect from 01.10.1983. Thus, it is urged that the impugned order has to be set-aside.

¶35

Learned counsel for the respondent-employee, on the other hand, would contend that the issue raised by the petitioner is held against the State in W.A.No.5810/2012. As such, the petition is not maintainable.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner-State, by way of reply, would contend that the State has filed special leave petition before the Apex Court and the same is pending consideration and the operation of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court is stayed. As such, the respondent-employee cannot take defence under the judgment of this Court in W.A.No.5810/2012.

¶37

This Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records.

¶38

It is not in dispute that on 01.10.1983, the respondent was employed as a daily wager by the petitioner-State and his services were regularized with effect

¶39

4 -

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:19700 WP No. 9245 of 2018

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

from 30.09.1993 and thereafter, the respondent attained age of superannuation on 30.04.2013. In similar matters,

¶43

the Division Bench of this Court has taken a view that date of joining has to be reckoned from the initial date of joining and not from the date of regularization.

¶44

It is now submitted that the said question is pending consideration before the Apex Court.

¶45

Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the petition is need not be considered on merits. Hence, the following:

¶46

ORDER

¶47

(i) The Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶48

(ii) Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to re-open the matter

¶49

and to agitate the question, in case the Apex Court answers the question in favour of the petitioner.

¶50

(iii) The petitioner-State shall release the amount due in favour of the respondent-employee subject to the respondentemployee giving an undertaking that he shall refund the

¶51