KARNATAKA STATE ROAD V. THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER

WP/21202/2014

AI Insights

The case involves the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) challenging the orders of the Deputy Labour Commissioner and the Assistant Labour Commissioner regarding the payment of gratuity to the widow of a deceased employee, who had taken a loan from the KSRTC Employees Co-operative Society. The employee, after his voluntary retirement, had filed a claim for the difference in gratuity, which was adjudicated by the second respondent. However, the loan repayment by the employee was not considered in the initial proceedings, leading to the writ petition by KSRTC. The court's decision rectified this oversight, leading to the setting aside of the previous orders and directing the third respondent to repay the excess amount received.

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 726905 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 26-03-2018
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Payment of Gratuity Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: KEERTHI NAIK; K SRINIVASA
• Assessee Lawyers: RENUKA R
• Keywords: Controlling Authority; Gratuity; Loan; Promissory Note; Voluntary retirement
• Section: 226; 227

Judgement Text

" 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2018 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY WRIT PETITION NO.21202/2014 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, BANGALORE CENTRAL DIVISION, K.H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 027 BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER ... PETITIONER (BY SMT : RENUKA H R, ADV.) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY, UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, REGION 1, KARMEEKA BHAVAN, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 029 2. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND CONTROLLING AUTHORITY, UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, DIVISION IV, KARMEEKA BHAVAN, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 029 3. VIJAYALAKSHMI W/O LATE K.RAMANNA, 2 ADULT, NO.14/29, 16TH MAIN, SRINAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 050 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.KEERTHI KUMAR NAIK, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI.K.SRINIVASA, ADV. FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDERS MADE IN ANNX-D PASSED BY THE R-2 DT.27.12.2010 AND DT.30.11.2013 (ANNX-F) PASSED BY THE R-1. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: O R D E R The husband of the third respondent joined the services of the Corporation on 23rd January 1973 as Artisan and has opted for taking voluntary retirement and he was permitted to retire from service with effect from 01st July 2006. He had filed the claim petition before the second respondent claiming difference of gratuity and in the meanwhile, during the pendency of the claim petition, he died on 12th December 2008. Hence, wife of the deceased-workman has been brought on record as third respondent. After adjudication, the second respondent directed the respondent-the petitioner herein to pay difference in gratuity 3 amount to the tune of Rs.71,679/-. Against the same, this petition is filed. 2. The ground taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner-Corporation is that the husband of the third petitioner has taken the loan of Rs.60,000/- and made an on-demand promissory note to that effect and that he had not paid the same. The difference of Rs.53,560/- has been paid to the KSRTC Employees Co-operative Society and to that effect the Society has issued an endorsement on 22nd January 2014 as per Annexure-A. Despite, the third respondent availing of loan, the same has been suppressed and the claim petition has been filed before the second respondent-Controlling Authority. The loan particulars were not placed before the second respondent and accordingly the second respondent, by its order dated 27th December, 2010 directed the petitioner to pay to the third respondent the remaining amount of Rs.53,260 is improper and the same is required to be set aside. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent submits to dismiss the petition. It is submitted that the petitioner was 4 directed to comply with the order passed by paying the amount of Rs.71,679/-. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the loan papers and also the communication made by the Co-operative Society with the petitioner acknowledging the payment of Rs.53,560/-. The loan papers have been produced as per Annexure-B and the receipt for also having cleared the loan has been produced along with it. This aspect was not placed before the Controlling Authority. Though it has arrived at proper calculation, but has not seen the payment of Rs.53,560/- paid by the petitioner as Guarantor and directed the petitioner to pay the amount which has already been discharged by the petitioner by paying the same to the loan account. Under the circumstances, the petitioner succeeds and the order of the second respondent needs to be set aside. Accordingly, it is set aside. The third respondent is directed to repay the petitioner the balance amount, if any. As regards the tax amount deducted at source by the petitioner towards income-tax of the third respondent is concerned, the third respondent is at liberty 5 to claim the same from the income-tax department. On such demand made by the third respondent, the Income-tax department shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Petition is allowed. ` Sd/- JUDGE lnn "