IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI WRIT PETITION No.14961 OF 2016 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN:
S. Nagarajappa S/o K. Siddananjappa, Aged about 73 years, R/at Rajabeedi, Hondarahbadu, Madhuvana Halli Post, Kollegal Taluk, Chamaraja Nagar District. …Petitioner (By Sri. M.C. Basavaraju, Advocate) AND:
1. The Deputy Labour Commissioner and Appellate Authority Region-I, Karmika Bhavana, Bannerghatta Road, Bengaluru – 560 026.
2. The Assistant Labour Commissioner and Controlling Authority Under Payment of Gratuity Act, Division-II, Karmika Bhavana, Bannerghatta Road, Bengaluru – 560 026.
3. The Divisional Controller KSRTC, Bengaluru Central Division, Shanthi Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 027. …Respondents (By Sri. A.C. Balaraj, HCGP for R1 and R2; Smt. H.R. Renuka, Advocate for R3) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned order dated 24.09.2013 vide Annexure-A to this writ petition passed by respondent No.2 and order dated 18.02.2016 vide Annexure-B to this writ petition passed by respondent No.1 and etc., This writ petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group this day, the court made the following:
ORDER In the instant petition, petitioner has sought for the following releifs:
i) Issue a writ in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the impugned orders bearing No.SAKAAA BEM-2/PGA/CR- 63/2012 dated 24.09.2013 vide Annexure-A to this writ petition passed by the second respondent and Order bearing No.UKAAA- 1:PGA:CR-180:2013-14 dated 18/02/2016 vide Annexure – B to this writ petition passed by the first respondent and ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the third respondent to pay a sum of Rs.41,969/-as difference of gratuity to the petitioner with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of retirement till the date of payment, under the facts and circumstances of the case and iii) Pass any order/s or relief/s as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant under the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.”
2. Petitioner’s grievance is relating to payment of gratuity by the respondent No.3-Management. Even though petitioner has rendered service for a period of 34 years 09 months 14 days, his application for payment of gratuity is highly belated. Such application is presented after about 11 years. Assistant Labour Commissioner cum Gratuity Controlling Authority has dismissed the petitioner’s application on the sole ground that application was highly belated by 11 years. Petitioner has not apprised this Court relating to delay of 11 years. Relevant provision mandates that the Management is required to maintain the service records of its employees for a period of three years. Therefore, it is not appropriate in entertaining the petitioner’s application for gratuity payment after 11 years from the date of his retirement.
Hence, no interference is called for in respect of Annexure-A. Accordingly, petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE MBM