IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA Writ Petition No. 59396 OF 2014 (L-KSRTC) Between:
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Mysore Rural Division, Bannimantap Road, Mysore, By its Divisional Controller, Represented by its Chief Law Officer.
(By Smt. H.R.Renuka, Advocate) And:
1. The Deputy Labour Commissioner and the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, Region – II, Karmika Bhavan, Bannerghatta Road, Bengaluru – 560 029.
2. The Assistant Labour Commissioner and Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, Mysore Division, Mysuru – 570 001.
... Petitioner 3. H.B. Hullur, S/o. late Bandappa, No.1380, 5th Cross, 6th Main Road, Sharadadevi Nagar, Mysuru – 570 001.
… Respondents (By Sri.Y.D.Harsha, AGA for R1 and R2; R3 is served but unrepresented) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order dated 30.03.2013 vide Annexure – B passed by the respondent No.2 and to quash the order dated 31.01.2014 vide Annexure – C and etc.
This Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group, this day, the Court made the following :
O R D E R The Corporation filed the present writ petition to quash the impugned order dated 30.03.2013 made in No.ALCMY/PGA/CR-60/2009 passed by the 2nd respondent and to quash the order made in No.DLCB- 2/DLC/CR-112/2013-14 dated 31.01.2014 passed by the Appellate Authority/respondent No.1.
2. It is the case of the Corporation that respondent No.3 was appointed as Badli Conductor from 01.12.1971 to 28.02.1972 and he has worked upto 31.05.1975. Thereafter, he was placed on probation on 18.01.1975 and dismissed from service on 31.08.2005. On his retirement, the workman was paid gratuity by calculating the period of service as 33 years 04 months and 13 days, break in service as 06 years 05 months and 08 days, active service as 26 years 11 months and 05 days. According to the Corporation, the gratuity payable to the workman was calculated as Rs.7756 x 26.11 years totaling to Rs.2,14,149/-. The said amount was paid to the respondent No.3. Inspite of the same, respondent No.3 filed an application before the 2nd respondent- Controlling Authority claiming difference in gratuity. The Corporation filed objections to the said application. The workman examined himself and the Corporation examined one witness and produced documents Ex.R1 to R5. The 2nd respondent-
Controlling Authority by the order dated 30.03.2013 allowed the application filed by the workman partly and directed payment of gratuity taking into consideration as Rs.8560 x 36 years 6 months, the amount payable was Rs.3,12,440/-. After deduction of Rs.2,30,406/-, the balance payable was Rs.82,034/- with interest at 10% amounting to Rs.38,859/- totaling to Rs.1,20,893/-.
3. Aggrieved by the said order passed by 2nd respondent-Controlling Authority, the Corporation filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority- 1st respondent. The 1st respondent by the impugned order dated 31.01.2014 modified the order of the 2nd respondent by reducing the rate of interest from 10% to 6% and directed payment of Rs.20,918/- towards interest. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. Though respondent No.3 is served, he remained unrepresented.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned AGA for respondents No.1 and 2.
6. Smt.H.R. Renuka, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that both the authorities below have not considered the documents produced at Annexures A1 to A14 and hence the authorities erred in taking into consideration the period of service from 1971 to 1975 and the same is without any basis as the workman did not render service for the period 1971 to 1975. Therefore, the authority was not justified in directing the Corporation to pay gratuity from 1971 to 1975. She further contended that the documents produced at Annexures A1 to A14 were not produced before the authorities, which was the duty of the workman to satisfy both the authorities below. Therefore, she sought to allow the writ petition.
7. Per Contra, Sri.Y.D.Harsha, learned AGA appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 sought to justify the impugned order passed by the authorities below. He further contended that Annexures A1 to A14 were not produced by the corporation before the authorities whereby the authorities justified in passing the impugned orders. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
9. It is not in dispute that respondent No.3 has worked for 33 years 04 months and 13 days and he is entitled for gratuity amount for the said period. According to the Corporation, respondent No.3 has worked only for 26 years 11 months 05 days and accordingly, the entire amount of gratuity was Rs.2,14,149/- for the said period was paid to him. The only dispute in the present case according to the Corporation is that the petitioner has not worked from 29.12.1971 to 05.01.1975. Therefore, he is not entitled for gratuity amount for the said period. The authority was wrong in calculating the period of service as 36 years 6 months but the workman has worked only for 33 years 4 months and 13 days. The documents as per Annexures A1 to 14 produced before this Court were not produced before the Labour Court . There was no occasion for the authorities below to consider the said documents to know that the workman has not worked during the year 1971 to 1975. When the workman has not produced any documents to specify that he has worked from 1971 to 1975 and worked for more than 36 years 6 months, the authorities below could not have proceeded to pass the impugned order. Though it was objected by the Corporation by filing objections stating that the workman worked for only 26 years 11 months 05 days, the same has not been considered by the authorities below. Therefore, the matter requires to be re-considered by the authorities by considering the documents produced before this Court as per Annexures A1 to A14 and pass fresh orders in accordance with law.
10. Since it is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Rs.2,14,149/- was already paid to the petitioner as per their calculation, the authority has to consider the documents at Annexures A1 to A14 afresh and pass orders. If there is any difference in gratuity payable, the same has to be paid in accordance with law.
11. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 30.03.2013 made in No.ALCMY/PGA/CR/ 60/2009 passed by 2nd respondent vide Annexure ‘B’ and impugned order made in No.DLCB-2/DLC/CR- 112/2013-14 dated 31.01.2014 passed by Appellate Authority/respondent No.1 vide Anneuxre ‘C’ are hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to 2nd respondent-Controlling Authority to consider Annexures A1 to A14 produced before this Court and to pass fresh orders in accordance with law after issuing notice and opportunity to the workman within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The petitioner is also directed to produce the said documents before the 2nd respondent.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE UN