IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ WRIT APPEAL NO.3704 OF 2016 [L-PG] AND WRIT APPEAL NO.3705 OF 2016 [L-PG] BETWEEN:
1. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CAUVERY NEERAVARI NIGAM LIMITED, NO.10, H.L.B.C. SUB-DIVISION, KIKKERI, K.R. PET TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 401.
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, CAUVERY NEERAVARI NIGGAM LIMITED, CAUVERY BHAVAN COMPLEX, GOKULAM 4TH STAGE, MYSURU-560 001.
NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. ... APPELLANTS [BY SRI. K.S. BHEEMAIAH, ADVOCATE] AND 1. THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY, BENGALURU-560 029.
2. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND CONTROLLING AUTHORITY, UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, MYSURU DIVISION, MYSURU-570 001.
3. SRI. RAME GOWDA, MAJOR, SON OF LATE NANJE GOWDA, SOLLEPURA KIKKERI HOBLI, K.R. PET TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 401. ... RESPONDENTS [BY SRI. VASANTH V. FERNANDIS, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2] THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NOS.33237 AND 33238 OF 2016 [L-PG] DATED 21.06.2016.
* * * * * THESE WRIT APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY MOHAMMAD NAWAZ, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT These writ appeals are directed against the Order dated 21.06.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. Nos.33237 and 33238 of 2016 [L-PG] rejecting the said writ petitions.
2. The case of the appellants is that respondent No.3 was appointed as a daily wage worker in the Irrigation Department, Government of Karnataka on 11.08.1992, from which date he was regularized in service. He retired on 31.01.2011 and he was paid a sum of Rs.60,125/- as Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity as provided under the provisions of the Karnataka Civil and Service Rules [‘KCS Rules’ for brevity]. However, he filed an application before the 2nd respondent under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 [‘PG Act’ for brevity] for re- determination of the gratuity.
3. The grievance of the appellants is that the 2nd respondent, being the Controlling Authority without ascertaining as to whether he has jurisdiction in the matter, has re-determined the gratuity and directed the appellants to deposit the same within a period of 30 days by an Order dated 11.09.2015. They deposited the entire amount and preferred an appeal before respondent No.1 herein. However, the said appeal was dismissed by respondent No.1 on the ground of limitation, without going through the merits of the case.
4. According to the appellants, respondent No.3 is not entitled for re-determination of the gratuity and they are not liable to pay any amount as he was regularized under the KCS Rules and in view of Section 2(e) of the PG Act, the said Act is not applicable to the said respondent, since ‘employees’ does not include any such person who holds a post under the Central Government or a State Government.
5. The writ petitions challenging the order passed by the 2nd respondent at Annexure-‘A’ dated 11.09.2015 and the endorsement at Annexure-‘B’ dated 10.05.2016 passed by respondent No.1 came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge.
6. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the writ petitions have been dismissed without going into the merits of the case, solely on the ground of delay in filing the appeal before respondent No.1 herein. He contends that the PG Act is not applicable to the persons who holds the office under the State Government, since they are governed under the provisions of the KCS Rules and as such respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein have no jurisdiction to entertain or re-determine the gratuity.
7. It is not disputed that the appeal before respondent No.2 was filed not within the stipulated period of 60 days and maximum period of 120 days along with an application as provided under Section 7(7) of the PG Act. The Appellate Authority has no authority to condone the delay beyond 120 days. Mere depositing the amount would not entitle the appellants to maintain an appeal.
8. The learned Single Judge has placed reliance on a decision reported in ILR 2009 Kar. 717 [Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation Vs. Deputy Labour Commissioner and the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act Bangalore and others], wherein it is held that the Payment of Gratuity Rules do not vests any power to the Appellate Authority to extend the time beyond the period prescribed by the proviso to sub-Section (7) of Section 7 of the said Act and that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable.
For the foregoing reasons, the appeals are dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE Ksm*