KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT V. THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER

WP/17204/2014

AI Insights

The case involves the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (petitioner) challenging the orders of the Deputy Labour Commissioner and the Appellate Authority regarding the payment of gratuity to D. Channaveerappa (respondent). The respondent, after serving the Corporation for over 31 years, retired and claimed gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The authorities determined the gratuity amount but did not deduct a loan repayment of \\u20b923,600/- made by the Corporation on behalf of the respondent. The petitioner sought to modify the orders to reflect this deduction. The court found merit in the petitioner's claim and adjusted the gratuity amount accordingly.

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 726929 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 21-08-2017
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Gratuity Rules, 1973
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SHWETHA KRISHNAPPA; K SRINIVASA
• Assessee Lawyers: H R RENUKA
• Keywords: Certiorari; Certiorari; Gratuity; Loan deduction; Writ petition
• Section: 7(4)

Judgement Text

" 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2017 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION No.17204/2014(L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, BANGALORE CENTRAL DIVISION, BANGALORE, BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, REPRESENTED BY BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER. ... PETITIONER (BY SMT. H. R. RENUKA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY, UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, REGION 2, KARMEEKA BHAWAN, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE 560029. 2. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER, AND CONTROLLING AUTHORITY, UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, DIVISION-4, KARMEEKA BHAWAN, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE 560029. 3. D. CHANNAVEERAPPA S/O LATE D.C. DEVASETHAPPA, ADULT, NO 21/1, 4TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN, 2 KAMAKSHYA LAYOUT , BSK STAGE, BANGALORE-560078. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SHWETHA KRISHNAPPA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI K. SRINIVASA, ADVOCATE FOR R3) …… THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 18.1.2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-C PASSED BY THE R-2 QUASH THE ORDER DATED 19.10.2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-E PASSED BY THE R-1. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER The petitioner Corporation filed the present writ petition for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 18.01.2013 made in No.ALCB-4/PGA/CR/15/09-10, Annexure-C, passed by the second respondent and the order dated 19.10.2013, made in No.DYLCB-2/PGA/ CR/12/13-14, as per Annexure-E, passed by first respondent. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No.3 joined the Corporation as a conductor on 3 01.03.1974 and retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.01.2005 by serving the Corporation for 31 years 8 months 24 days. Accordingly, the gratuity payable to the third respondent was `2,18,466 (`6,870/- x 31.8). Deducting `1,71,162 already received, respondent No.3 is entitled to `47,304. The third respondent filed an application before the second respondent under Section 7(4) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 r/w Rule 10(1) of the Gratuity Rules, 1973, for payment of gratuity. The second respondent, after considering the entire material on record, by the impugned order dated 18.01.2013, held that the third respondent is entitled to balance gratuity amount of `56,688/- with 6% interest. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner Corporation filed an appeal before the first respondent/Deputy Labour Commissioner and Appellate Authority, who after hearing both the parties, by the impugned order 4 dated 19.10.2013, modified the order of second respondent and held that the third respondent is entitled to differential gratuity amount of `33,972/- with interest at 6% per annum for the period from 07.05.2009 to 10.04.2013. Aggrieved by the said order, Corporation has filed the present writ petition. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 5. Smt.H.R.Renuka, learned counsel for the petitioner/ Corporation, vehemently contended that both the authorities below have not deducted `23,600/-, the loan amount availed by the third respondent which was repaid by the Corporation. Therefore, she sought to allow the writ petition by modifying the order passed by the authorities below. 6. Sri Srinivas, learned counsel for the respondent No.3, fairly submits that while determining the gratuity 5 amount, the authorities have not deducted `23,600/- towards loan amount repaid by the Corporation which was availed by the third respondent. The said submission is placed on record. 7. The appellate authority considering the entire material on record, has come to the conclusion that the Corporation has to pay to the third respondent a sum of `33,972/- with interest at 6% per annum for the period from 07.05.2009 to 10.04.2013. The same is not questioned by the third respondent. The Corporation filed the present writ petition only to the extent that `23,600/- is not deducted by the authorities towards the repayment of loan made by the petitioner which was availed by the third respondent. In view of the same, there is no dispute with regard to total amount payable by the petitioner i.e., `33,972/- as modified by the appellate authority. But both original authority and the appellate authority have not considered the fact that 6 petitioner has paid `23,600/- towards loan amount availed by the third respondent. The same has to be deducted from the differential gratuity amount. Therefore, after deducting `23,600/- from `33,972/-, the Corporation is liable to pay differential amount of `10,372/- with interest at 6% per annum for the period from 07.05.2009 to 10.04.2013, to the petitioner. 8. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed in part. The impugned orders are modified holding that the petitioner is entitled to differential gratuity amount of `10,372/- with interest at 6% per annum for the period from 07.05.2009 to 10.04.2013. 9. The petitioner Corporation is reserved liberty to seek refund of `3,496/- from the Income Tax authorities, in accordance with law. The respondent authorities are directed to release `10,372/- with interest at 6% per annum, in favour of the third respondent, forthwith, and remaining amount, if any, 7 before the second respondent shall be refunded to the petitioner Corporation, forthwith. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- JUDGE kcm "