Karnataka State Road vs The Deputy Labour on 7 October, 2013

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Karnataka State Road vs The Deputy Labour on 7 October, 2013

Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy

                              1

                                           W.P.NO.1293/13
                                                         .
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE

   DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2013

                         BEFORE

  THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY

      WRIT PETITION NO. 1293 OF 2013 (L-KSRTC)

BETWEEN:

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION
TUMKUR DIVISION
TUMKUR
BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
REPRESNTED BY ITS
CHIEF LAW OFFICER
                                      ... PETITIONER

(By Smt : H R RENUKA, ADV.)

AND

1.THE DEPUTY LABOUR
COMMISIONER AND THE
APPELLATE AUTHORITY
UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT
REGION-1, KARMEEKA BHAVAN
BANNERGHATTA ROAD
BANGALORE-560026

2.THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER
AND CONTROLLING AUTHORITY
UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT
DIVISION-1, KARMEEKA BHAVAN,
BANNERGHATTA ROAD
BANGALROE-560026

3.GANGAMMA
SINCE DECEASED BY LRS:
                               2

                                             W.P.NO.1293/13
                                                           .
(i) SMT.H.L.SOWMYASHREE
W/O SIDDARAJU,
ADULT

(ii) SRI.H.L.PAVAN KUMAR,
S/O H.A.LAKSHMAIAH,
ADULT

(iii) H.L.PRATAP,
S/O H.A.LAKSMAIAH,
MINOR,
REP. BY GUARDIAN R-3(ii)
H.L.PAVANAKUMAR

R/O HADNA, KIBBANAHALLI POST
TIPATUR TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 201.
                                          .. RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H VENKATESH DODDERI, AGA FOR R1 & R2)
(By Sri.M.C.BASAVARAJU, ADV. FOR R-3(1-3)
R-3(III) REP. BY R-3(II))

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDERS DATED 12.11.09 VIDE ANNX-A PASSED BY R2 AND
DATED 22.8.12 VIDE ANNX-C PASSED BY R1.

    THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRL. HEARING (B-
GROUP) THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                            ORDER

A Public Road Transport Corporation aggrieved by the orders dated 12.11.2009 Annexure-A of the Controlling Authority and dated 22.8.2012 Annexure-C of the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, has presented this petition. 3 W.P.NO.1293/13

2. The only contention of the Learned counsel for the petitioner-Corporation is that `44,500/- paid and credited to the loan Account of the workman, by name H.A.Lakshmaiah, since deceased, represented by widow and children, from out of the gratuity when not taken into consideration has resulted in injustice.

3. Per contra, Sri.M.C.Basavaraju, learned counsel for the respondents-legal representatives of the workman submits that neither the workman conceded to hive off `44,500/- from out of gratuity and make payment towards alleged loan account with State Bank of Mysore nor was there evidence to substantiate the same before the Controlling Authority and Appellate Authority and therefore, the orders impugned do not call for interference.

4. There is no dispute that the deceased workman when dismissed from service was entitled to gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, if more 4 W.P.NO.1293/13 .

beneficial, than determination of gratuity under the KSRTC Gratuity Regulations. It is also not in dispute that the workman filed an application under the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 for determination of the gratuity in which the Corporation arraigned as a respondent, opposed the petition by filing counter statement. In the trial before the Controlling Authority one L.Dakshanamurthy, s/o Murulayya, E.S.T. Superintendent of Tumkur Division, was examined as a witness for the Corporation. In the affidavit, by way of examination in chief of RW-1, there was not even a mention as to the amount of `44,500/- said to have been deducted from out of the gratuity payable to the workman and remitted to the State Bank of Mysore in respect of the alleged loan amount due by the workman. However, in cross examination stated that `46,500/- was deducted and made over to State Bank of Mysore, Turuvekere, though the workman had not executed any consent letter for effecting the deduction. The material 5 W.P.NO.1293/13 .

on record does not disclose a demand by State Bank of Mysore, Turuvekere calling upon the Corporation calling to deposit `44,500/- towards monies due in the loan account of the deceased workman.

5. It is in the absence of relevant material constituting substantial legal evidence of the aforesaid fact it is not open for the petitioner-Corporation to assert that the workman extended his consent to deduct `44,500/- from out of his gratuity amount and remit it to the State Bank of Mysore, Turuvekere. Yet again what is surprising is that the widow of the deceased workman examined as AW-1, when tendered for cross- examination there was not a suggestion that the workman was due the aforesaid sum of money and payable to State Bank of Mysore and that it was a lawful deduction effected from out of the gratuity payable to the workman.

W.P.NO.1293/13

6. Regard being had to the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 which does not provide for a deduction of the nature done by the petitioner- Corporation, as a lawful deduction, from out of the gratuity payable to the workman, no exception can be taken to the reasons, findings and conclusions arrived at by the authorities below calling for interference with the orders impugned.

Petition devoid of merit is rejected.

Sd/-

JUDGE ln

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court