IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO. 57940 OF 2018(L-PG) BETWEEN:
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION CHIKKABALLAPUR DIVISION, CHIKKABALLAPUR, BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLEER, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER.
(BY SMT. RENUKA H R, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND THE APPELLANT AUTHORITY, UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT DIVISION 2, KARMEEKA BHAVAN, BANEERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE-560029.
2. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND CONTROLLING AUTHORITY, UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT DIVISION 2, KARMEEKA BHAVAN, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE-560029.
… PETITIONER 3. A NAGARAJ, S/O ASHWATHAPPA, ADULT, R/O NO.894, PRASHANTHANAGARA, 5TH WARD, CHIKKABALLAPUR-562101 … RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. A R SHARADAMBA, AGA FOR R1 & R2; MISS. GOPIKA N, FOR SRI. A J SRINIVASAN, ADVOCATES FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 27.04.2016 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THE R-2; QUASH THE ORDER MADE DATED 08.12.2017 (ANNEXURE-C) PASSED BY THE R-1.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER The petitioner – Management of the KSRTC is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the order dated 27.04.2016 made by the second respondent and another order dated 08.12.2017 made by the first respondent in appeal, copies whereof are respectively at Annexures A & C.
2. After service of notice, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are represented by Smt. Sharadamba, learned AGA and the third respondent having entered appearance through his counsel, oppose the writ petition.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, reprieve needs to be granted to the petitioner – Management in view of the admitted fact position, namely the third respondent workman has received a sum of Rs.3,46,093/- vide Cheque dated 02.09.2014 and another sum Rs.65,779/- vide another Cheque dated 13.11.2015 which together would quantify at Rs.4,11,892/- whereas both the authorities below have ignored to take into account Rs.65,779/- which has accrued because of the argued revision of pay scale. Thus the petitioner is liable to pay only a sum of Rs.86,792/- with interest at the rate of 10% per annum reckoning from 10.12.2014 till the deposit is made before the Controlling Authority.
4. However, since the petitioner-Management by its inaction, has made the respondent-workman to approach the Authority and fight the legal battle for long, it is liable to pay a cost of Rs.15,000/- to the workman.
In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds in part; the impugned orders are accordingly modified; petitioner – Management is directed to pay a cost of Rs.15,000/- to the third respondent within a period of four weeks.
It is open to the petitioner – Management to seek the appropriation qua the amount said to have been put in deposit, by it; the jurisdictional authority shall take the steps accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE Bsv