IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR W.P.NO.30639/2018 (L PG) BETWEEN SIDDHARTHA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY MARLUR, TUMKUR-572105, TUMKUR DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL.
(BY SRI CHANDRAKANTH R GOULAY, ADV.) AND 1. SRI H.S.JAYARAMU S/O LATE H.SITHARAMAIAH, AGED MAJOR, RESIDENT OF MANGALA PRADA, 4TH MAIN, SHIVAMOOKAMBINAGAR, UPPARAHALLI, TUMKUR-572102.
2. THE LABOUR OFFICER AND CONTROLLING AUTHORITY FOR PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT 1972, DIVISION, TUMKUR DISTRICT, TUMKUR-572102.
(BY SMT. B.P.RADHA, AGA. FOR R2.) ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER, TUMKUR R-2 AS PER ANNEXURE-A, AS WITHOUT COMPETENCE AND JURISDICTION AND OTHERWISE BEING ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND VOID.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER 1. Learned AGA accepts notice for respondent No.2.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGA.
3. The instant writ petition is preferred impugning the hearing notice issued by the Labour Officer, Tumakuru – respondent No.2 herein. The hearing notice dated 22.12.2017 is issued pursuant to an application by respondent No.1 under Rule 10(1) of the Karnataka Rules, 1973, framed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
4. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the proceedings before respondent No.2 was the subject matter before this Court in a batch of writ petitions in W.P.No.39434/2013 and other connected writ petitions which came to be disposed off by order dated 03.08.2017. While so disposing off the writ petitions, this Court has been pleased to pass the following order:
“58. In the result, I pass the following order:
(i) The challenge to the newly substituted Section 2(e) and the newly inserted Section 13- A of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is negatived.
(ii) Writ Petition Nos.14083/2011, 29691- 694/2011, 44827-830/2011 and 49523/2013, wherein only the validity of amended provisions is challenged, are dismissed.
(iii) In Writ Petition Nos.51033/2012, 51034/2012, 51035/2012, 38497/2014 and 2145/2013, the amended provisions and the notices issued by the Controlling Authority are challenged. These writ petitions are dismissed but by expressly reserving the liberty to the petitioners to submit a reply to the impugned notices and to take part in the enquiry proceedings before the Controlling Authority.
(iv) Writ Petition Nos.39434/2013, 1163/2012, 37434/2013, 10429-10436/2013, 43321/2015 and 43322/2015, wherein both the amended provisions and the orders of the Controlling Authority are challenged, are dismissed but by expressly reserving the liberty to the petitioners to challenge the impugned orders passed by the Controlling Authority by way of appeal invoking Section 7(7) of the said Act. It shall be open to the petitioners to seek the exclusion of time bona fide spent on these writ proceedings invoking Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The proviso to Section 7(7) of the said Act also provides for the condonation of delay, if sufficient cause is shown for the same. If an appeal is filed within three weeks from today, the Appellate Authority shall consider the petitioners’ applications for the condonation of delay sympathetically.
(v) It shall also be open to the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.39434/2013, 1163/2012, 37434/2013, 10429-436/2013, 43321/2015 and 43322/2015 to establish before the Appellate Authority that they are not liable to pay the interest for the delayed period, if they are in a position to bring the interest-issue within the ambit of the proviso to Section 7(3-A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Needless to observe that it shall be equally open to the employees to resist the anticipated appeals of the petitioners by contending that the proviso to Section 7(3-A) is not attracted. It is for the Appellate Authority to take a call on the interest-issue after hearing both the parties.”
5. It is not in dispute that what is sought to be impugned is a mere hearing notice and that too after considerable delay. The filing of the writ petition is sought to be justified on the ground of pendency of the writ appeal preferred by the petitioners in the batch of writ petitions stated supra. It is submitted that the writ appeals are registered as W.A.Nos.687/2018 & 688/2018 and that the same are pending. Hence, it is prayed that the instant writ petition requires adjudication.
6. In the opinion of this Court, the said contentions are required to be negatived in the light of the orders passed by this Court. W.P.Nos.51033/2012, 51034/2012, 51035/2012, 38497/2014 and 2145/2013 which form part of the batch of writ petitions and which came to be rejected by reserving liberty to the petitioners to submit their reply to the impugned notice. Mere pendency of writ appeal would not in any manner amount to a leverage to the petitioner to scuttle the hearing. No rights having been adjudicated, the instant writ petition is wholly unsustainable and the same is dismissed as premature.
Sd/- JUDGE KK CT-HR