IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH REVIEW PETITION NO.312 OF 2018 IN WRIT PETITION NO.8657 OF 2011 (LK) BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KOLAR DIVISION, KOLAR, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER, K.S.R.T.C. CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI SANJEEV B.L., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI R.V. VENKATAREDDY SON OF VENKATARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDENT OF DINDIGANAHALLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT.
2. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT BENGALURU DIVISION-3, KARMIKA BHAVAN, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU.
3. THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY, UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, BENGALURU REGION-2, KARMIKA BHAVAN, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VASANTH V. FERNANDES, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R-2 AND R-3) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 29.08.2018 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.8657 OF 2011(LK), BY THIS COURT.
***** THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard learned counsels.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in terms of the order under review, the same is required to be complied with by the review petitioner. However, he submits that certain amounts have already been paid which is far in excess than the order under review. Therefore, he pleads that only that portion of the order wherein after the calculation in terms of the order under review, the excess if any, may be refunded to him and on the contrary any deficit he is willing to pay.
3. Counsel for respondent No.1 was absent when the order under review was passed. Therefore, I do not find it necessary to issue notice to respondent No.1 since his legal rights will not be affected by the present order, since the order under review so far as quantification is concerned is not being disturbed.
Under these circumstances, the review petition is partly allowed. The order dated 29-8-2018 passed in writ petition No. 8657 of 2011 by the learned Single Judge is reviewed to the following extent:
That the respondent No.1 is directed to refund any excess amount which has been paid by the review petitioner to him. If there is any deficit the petitioner undertakes to make that payment.
off.
With these observations, this petition is disposed Learned Government Advocate is granted four weeks time to file his memo of appearance.
Sd/- JUDGE rsk/-