Karnataka High Court
The Managing Director vs Shri Chidanand Basappa Hoolikatti on 23 July, 2024
Author: M.G.S. Kamal
Bench: M.G.S. Kamal
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10374
WP No. 101598 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
WRIT PETITION NO.101598 OF 2023(L-PG)
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
GOKAK TEXTILES LIMITED, (GOKAK MILLS DIVISION),
GOKAK FALLS - 591 308,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI Z. N. HANSI &
SRI A.P.BANKAPUR, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. SHRI CHIDANAND BASAPPA HOOLOKATTI,
ANANDSWAMI GHATTA DEVARMATH
DEVID SON ROAD, RENUKA SUGAR HINDE CAMP,
TQ AND DIST: BELAGAVI - 590 001.
2. THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY,
UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972,
THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER,
Digitally
signed by V N BELAGAVI, KARMIK BHAVAN, MAJAGAON ROAD,
BADIGER
BELAGAVI - 590 008.
Location: High
Court of ...RESPONDENTS
Karnataka
(BY SRI P.N.HATTI, HCGP FOR R2;
SRI DEEPAK S. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT IN
THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER
AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED AWARD DATED 17.12.2022 PASSED BY
THE RESPONDENT ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI
IN SAKAABE/UPAKA/APPEAL/CR NO.15/2022, PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE B TO THIS WRIT PETITION DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF
THE PETITIONER AND GRANTING GRATUITY CLAIM TO THE
RESPONDENT CLAIMANT AND ETC.,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10374
WP No. 101598 of 2023
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B
GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The petitioner-Management is before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 17.12.2022, passed by respondent No.2, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner, on the ground of limitation as well as on merits.
2. The case of the petitioner is that, respondent No.1 had joined the services on 05.08.2006 as Badli Worker and he left the services on and from 30.06.2017 that his services were governed under the standing orders of the Company. He had claimed gratuity of Rs.65,700/-, which was disputed by the petitioner - Management contending that, the claimant had worked in the appellant
- Company for 11 years as the Badli Worker, but his claim of he having rendered 12 years of service was incorrect. It is further contended that, last drawn salary of the said respondent No.1 was Rs.8,045-87 and not Rs.9,500/- as claimed. However, the petitioner - Management did not have an opportunity to present its case before the -3- NC: 2024:KHC-D:10374 WP No. 101598 of 2023 Controlling Authority, who by an exparte order dated 05.05.2022 directed the petitioner herein to pay the gratuity amount as claimed by respondent No.1 herein. The petitioner - Management received the said order and within the period of 60 days as prescribe under sub-section (7) of Section 7 of the Gratuity Act, 1972 preferred as appeal before respondent No.2. However, respondent No.2 erroneously held that, the appeal filed by the petitioner was beyond the period of 60 days and proceeded to confirm the order passed by the Controlling Authority. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of petition submitted that, from a bare perusal of the reasoning assigned at paragraph No.7 of the impugned order, it is clear that the Controlling Authority passed the order on 05.05.2022 and the appeal in question was filed on 28.06.2022 that is well within the period of 60 days -4- NC: 2024:KHC-D:10374 WP No. 101598 of 2023 prescribed for filing of the appeal under Section 7 of the Act. He submits that, despite taking note of these dates, respondent No.2 - Appellate Authority has grossly erred in holding that, the appeal was filed beyond the period of 60 days. Further, drawing attention of this Court to paragraph No.11 of the appeal memorandum, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had specifically raised the ground of maintainability of the claim of the respondent - workman on the premise of he being the Badli Worker. He further submits that, the appellant - Management had also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mafatlal Fine Spinning & Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Vs. Ramachhar Benimadhav Mishra1 in support of its contention of respondent not being entitled for the gratuity as he was the Badli worker. Thus, referring to the same, learned counsel submits that, the Appellate Authority has not adverted to the said issued raised by the petitioner. Thus, he submits that these two 1 (1997) ILLJ 475 GUJ -5- NC: 2024:KHC-D:10374 WP No. 101598 of 2023 aspects of the matters require consideration warranting interference at the hands of this Court.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent - workman submits that, though respondent No.2 - Appellate Authority had answered the question of limitation against the appellant, it had however addressed all the contentions raised by the petitioner on the merits of the case. He further submits that, even according to the petitioner, the respondent - workman has been working for 11 long years. Therefore, there is an admission on their part. He further submits that, this being the factual aspect, the petitioner - Management cannot be permitted to raise the bogey of respondent No.1 being the Badli Worker. He submits that, no grounds are made out and seeks for dismissal of the petition.
5. Heard. Perused the records.
6. Paragraph No.7 of the impugned order categorically reveal that the Appellate Authority itself has -6- NC: 2024:KHC-D:10374 WP No. 101598 of 2023 taken note of the fact that the impugned order was passed by the Controlling Authority on 05.05.2022 and the appeal in question was filed on 28.06.2022, which is well within the period of 60 days, as mandated under Section 7 of the Act. AS such, it is beyond the comprehension as to the reason for rejection of the appeal on the ground of limitation. On this ground alone, the order passed requires to be set aside.
7. Another aspect of the matter as vehemently submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner is with regard to the contention raised by the appellant concerning the status of the employment of respondent - workman. It is contended that the respondent - workman was appointed as the Badli Worker and not on a regular employment. He submits that, since this specific issue was raised, it was incumbent upon respondent No.2 - Appellate Authority to have adverted to the same. -7-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10374 WP No. 101598 of 2023
8. Perusal of the rest of the order do not indicate that any whisper is made with regard to the same in the impugned order.
9. No doubt, learned counsel for the respondents countered and refuted the allegations of the respondent - workman being the Badli Worker. However, there has been no discussion or finding or conclusion on the said aspect of the matter in the impugned order.
10. For the aforesaid two reasons, the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 - Appellate Authority is set aside and the matter is remitted to respondent No.2 - Appellate Authority for fresh consideration. Respondent No.2 - Appellate Authority after affording an opportunity to the parties shall pass appropriate orders adverting to all the grounds and contentions urged by the parties within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10374 WP No. 101598 of 2023
11. Since the parties are represented by their respective counsel, shall appear before respondent No.2 - Appellate Authority on 22.08.2024 without any further notice. The parties are at liberty to lead any further evidence and the same shall be taken on record by respondent No.2 - Appellate Authority.
SD/-
JUDGE VNP*/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17