Karnataka High Court
Karnataka State Road vs The Deputy Labour Commissioner on 19 November, 2020
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M Nagaprasanna
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO.48775/2015(L-KSRTC)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.52188/2015(L-KSRTC)
IN W.P.NO.48775/2015(L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
BANGALORE RURAL DIVISION
KIMCO BUILDING
DEEPANJALINAGARA
MYSORE ROAD
BANGALORE 560026.
BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
REPRESENTED BY
BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT.RENUKA H.R.,ADVOCATE)
(PHYSICAL HEARING)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER,
AND THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY,
UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT
REGION 1, KARMEEKA BHAWAN
2
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. CHIKKATHIMMIAH
S/O VEERA ELAGAIAH ADULT
R/O NO.309, 3RD MAIN
JAGAJYOTHI LAYOUT
JNANABHARATHI POST,
RING ROAD,BANGALORE-560056.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.LAKSHMAN RAO,ADV.,FOR R3;
SRI.SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 & R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 31.10.2011 VIDE ANN-D PASSED BY THE R-2
AND ETC.,
IN W.P.NO.52188/2015(L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
CHIKKATHIMMAIAH.M
S/O LATE ERELAGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
R/AT NO.477, 3RD MAIN,
3RD 'C' CROSS, R.R.LAYOUT,
NAGADEVANAHALLI, BANGALORE
UNIVERSITY POST,
BANGALORE-560 058.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.LAKSHMAN RAO,ADVOCATE)
3
AND:
1. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
K.S.R.T.C., BANGALORE RURAL,
DIVISION, RAMANAGARA BUS
STAND, 1ST FLOOR,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-571 511.
2. THE ASST. LABOUR COMMISSIONER
& GRATUITY CONTROLLING AUTHORITY
UNDER THE P.G.ACT OF 1972,
DIVISION-4, BANNERUGHATTA ROAD,
KARMIKA BHAVAN, BANGALORE-560 029.
3. THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER
& APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE
P.G.ACT OF 1972, REGION-1,
KARMIKA BHAVAN, BANNERUGHATTA
ROAD, BANGALORE-560 029.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.H.R.RENUKA ADV.,FOR R1;
SRI.SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA FOR R2 & R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDERS, PASSED BY THE R-2 DTD 31.10.2011 AND
R-3 IN ORDER DTD 28.11.2014 VIDE ANNX-A AND B
RESPECTIVELY, FURTHER DIRECT TO ALLOW CLAIM PETITION
FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 7(4) BEFORE THE
CONTROLLING AUTHORITY CLAIMING DEFICIT GRATUITY
AMOUNT OF RS.3,40,724/- TOGETHER WITH INTEREST AT 10%
PER ANNUM.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-
4
ORDER
This petition is filed by the Corporation calling in question the order of the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Court under the Payment of Gratuity Act, whereby the Controlling Authority has also taken into account Rs.63,600/- as payment that is due from the hands of the Corporation to the Employee.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record.
3. Brief facts leading to filing of this petition are that, the workman retired from service on 31.08.2015. During the service of the workman, he had availed loan from State Bank of Mysuru and had given an undertaking to the Corporation that the loan amount can be deducted from the gratuity that was payable to him on him being relieved on attaining the age of superannuation. Accordingly the petitioner-Corporation deducted the amount of Rs.63,600/- being the loan dues that he had availed in State Bank of Mysuru, according to the undertaking given by him and deposited the same in the loan account of the workman maintained by the bank, which is evident from 5 Annexure-B. The statement of accounts clearly shows that an amount of Rs.63,600/- is credited to the account of the workman.
4. The workman after his retirement on attaining the age of superannuation approached the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act claiming difference in gratuity and also contended that the amount of Rs.63,600/- that was credited to the loan account of the workman could not have been deducted from the gratuity. This plea was accepted by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act and the said amount of Rs.63,600/- is directed to be refunded to the workman on the ground that it could not have been recovered from the gratuity of workman. The Appellate Authority also confirms the order of the Controlling authority, taking the same view.
5. The issue with regard to recovery from the gratuity is dealt with by learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in identical cases of recovery from gratuity in the case of Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation Vs. The Deputy 6 Labour Commissioner & Others, in W.P.No.41553/2010, disposed of on 26.08.2011,wherein this Court in paragraph No.s 9 and 10 has held as follows:
"9. There is considerable force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the amounts from out of the gratuity payable to the 3rd respondent were, on instructions, remitted to his following accounts:-
(a)Subramaneshwar Shakara Bank - Rs.1,11,940/-
(b) Syndicate Bank Rs. 13,875/-
(c)KSRTC Pathina Co-operative
Society Rs. 18,190/-
(d)BMTC Co-operative
Society Rs. 4,133/-
(e) Festival Advance - Rs. 2,050/-
10. The Controlling Authority and Appellate Authority having noticed the assertion of the petitioner over the aforesaid deductions, without considering as to whether the amounts were credited to the account of the 3rd respondent, rejected the said contention. It is no doubt true that this Court has held that the Corporation does not have the power to effect deduction from out of Gratuity so as to discharge the loans raised by the workman, but in the instant case, it is not disputed that the amounts from the gratuity are not retained by the Corporation, but are admittedly credited to the accounts of the 3rd respondent in the respective Banks/Societies, and therefore, it was for the 3rd respondent to place material before the Authorities, to establish whether amounts in excess was credited to his accounts.7
Learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submits that he would take instructions in the matter and place relevant material, if granted reasonable time."
6. Following the judgment, learned Co-ordinate Bench, the order passed by the Controlling Authority directing refund of Rs.63,600/- which is already credited to the S.B. Account of the workman maintained by State Bank of Mysuru, is unfounded.
7. Hence, writ petition No.48775/2015 is allowed only to the extent of the direction of the Controlling Authority to refund Rs.63,600/- out of Rs.77,497/-,remaining amount of Rs.13,897/-is directed to be paid to the workman with interest at the rate of 10% as determined by the Controlling authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act.
8. In W.P.No.52188/2015, the workman claims that he is entitled to merger of the D.A. at 4% and re-determination of his terminal benefits.
9. An identical issue stands covered by the judgment of the learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.44573/2015 disposed of on 14.02.2020, wherein, in paragraph Nos.3 to 5, it has held as follows: 8
"3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the ruling of the Krishna Reddy1 is applicable to the facts of the present case. However, the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court [Dharwad Bench] in W.A.Nos.100195/2015 and allied matters turning down the said contention, has been challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.L.P.No.3460/2020 which is pending for consideration. Hence, the decision rendered by this Court in W.A.Nos.100195/2015 and allied matters would not be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand in view of the issue being seized of by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
4. Learned counsel for the Corporation placing reliance on the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench submitted that the arguments inasmuch as the applicability of the Krishna Reddy's, case supra stands on a different footing from the present set of facts. The case of Krishna Reddy, supra was considered in the context of the Government circular dated 11.07.2007 and memo of settlement, interpreting the same, this Court held that the benefits extended by the State Government would become automatically applicable to the employees of the Corporation also. It is relevant to note that the benefit under the order dated 28.11.1995 was limited to such employees who retired or died while in service during the relevant period i.e., from 28.11.1995 to 01.04.1998. Krishna Reddy having retired on 30.06.1996, he was rightly held to be entitled. However, the petitioner having retired on 23.02.2011, Krishna Reddy's, case is not applicable.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, it is discernable that the Division Bench ruling referred to 1 2007-1-LLJ 231 9 above, covers the subject matter involved in the present writ petition. However, the said judgment being questioned before the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP.No.3460/2020, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition in terms of the ruling of the Division Bench in W.A.No.100195/2015 and connected matters [D.D. 23.07.2019] subject to the result of the SLP.No.3460/2020.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed on what is determined there on the issue by the aforesaid learned Division Bench and Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
Sd/-
JUDGE Psg*