Karnataka High Court
Karnataka State Road vs The Deputy Labour Commissioner on 31 August, 2023
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:31334
WP No. 40272 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
WRIT PETITION NO. 40272 OF 2014 (L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
KOLAR DIVISION, KOLAR,
BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
REPRESENTED 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 - 560 029.
Digitally signed by
THEJASKUMAR N 2. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER
Location: HIGH AND CONTROLLING AUTHORITY,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT,
DIVISION-3, KARMEEKA BHAWAN
BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 029.
3. TAHASEENA BEGUM
W/O LATE SIRAJ PASHA,
ADULT,
NO. 413, 7TH CROSS, KURUBARAPET
MULABAGILU - 563 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.T.P.MALIPATIL., AGA FOR R1 & 2;
BY SRI.ROOPESH KUMAR.R., ADV. FOR C/R3 (ABSENT)]
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:31334
WP No. 40272 of 2014
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN
RELIEFS.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Smt.H.R.Renuka., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.T.P.Malipatil., learned AGA for the respondents 1 & 2 have appeared in person.
There is no representation on behalf of respondent No.3.
2. The workman - Siraj Pasha since deceased was appointed as a Driver in the establishment of the Corporation in the year 1983. He died on 15.01.2009. The workman would have attained the age of superannuation on 01.06.2021.
The wife of the deceased workman admitted that the Corporation has cleared the loan amount and she also received the documents which were furnished to the Bank at the time of availing the loan. As things stood thus, strangely she moved an application before the Controlling Authority. The Corporation filed objections and specifically contended that the gratuity amount has already been settled by deducting the amount of -3- NC: 2023:KHC:31334 WP No. 40272 of 2014 Rs.1,82,790/- (Rupees One Lakhs Eighty Two Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety only) towards HDFC Housing loan and also the salary advance amounting to Rs.2,298/- (Rupees Two Thousand Two Hundred and Ninety Eight only). The Corporation produced relevant documents to substantiate its contentions. However, the Controlling Authority on an erroneous approach overlooked the contentions of the Corporation and determined the gratuity and directed the Corporation to pay a sum of Rs.1,90,818/- (Rupees One Lakh Ninety Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighteen only) along with the interest at the rate of 10% from 29.05.2012 till the date of deposit. Aggrieved by the order of the Controlling Authority, the Corporation preferred an Appeal before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority allowed the appeal so far as it relates to the rate of interest and the same was directed to be paid from 29.05.2012 at 6% per annum. The orders of the Gratuity Authorities are called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set out in the memorandum of Writ Petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents 1 & 2 have urged several contentions. Heard, the contentions -4- NC: 2023:KHC:31334 WP No. 40272 of 2014 urged on behalf of the respective parties and perused the Writ papers with utmost care.
4. Smt.H.R.Renuka., learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation in presenting her arguments vehemently contended that the Gratuity Authorities have erred in not deducting the amount of a sum of Rs.1,85,088/- (Rupees One Lakh Eighty Five Thousand and Eighty Eight only) (1,82,790 + 2,298 = 1,85,088) and has erroneously directed the Corporation to pay a sum of Rs.1,90,818/- (Rupees One Lakh Ninety Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighteen only).
I find force in the said argument. The reason is apparent. It is not in dispute that the workman had availed housing loan from the HDFC Bank. It is also not in dispute that the Corporation cleared the loan amount at the request of third respondent in a sum of Rs.1,82,790/- (Rupees One Lakh Eighty Two Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety only) and a sum of Rs.2,298/- (Rupees Two Thousand Two Hundred and Ninety Eight only) was also received by the deceased workman towards salary advance. The evidence of the third respondent also reveals that she has admitted that at her request the -5- NC: 2023:KHC:31334 WP No. 40272 of 2014 Corporation has cleared the loan which was availed by her husband and also the amount which was received by her husband towards salary advance. Hence, in my view, the Gratuity Authorities ought to have taken into consideration of these amounts while determining the gratuity. Hence, the order directing the Corporation to pay the gratuity in a sum of Rs.1,90,818/- (Rupees One Lakh Ninety Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighteen only) is totally unsustainable in law.
Calculation is as under:
Gratuity determined by the Rs.2,15,193/- Corporation.
Less : [1,82,790 + 2,298] Rs.1,85,088/-
Amount deducted towards
HDFC loan and Salary
advance.
Balance Rs.30,105/-
Gratuity Payable: Rs.30,105/-
Less : Amount paid by the Rs.24,375/-
Corporation
Balance payable to the Rs.5,730/-
workman
-6-
NC: 2023:KHC:31334
WP No. 40272 of 2014
Therefore, the Controlling Authority is directed to release the amount of Rs.5,730/- (Rupees Five Thousand Seven Hundred and Thirty only) with the interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 29.05.2012 to 26.08.2013 which amounts to Rs.428/- (Rupees Four Hundred and Twenty Eight only), in total Rs.6,158/- (Rupees Six Thousand One Hundred and Fifty Eight only) in favor of the Corporation.
5. For the reasons stated above, the orders of the Gratuity Authorities are liable to be quashed.
6. The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The order dated:26.06.2013 passed by the Controlling Authority in No.ALCB-4/PGA/CR/69/2012-13 vide Annexure-H and the order dated:20.01.2014 passed by the Appellate Authority in No.DYLCB-2/DLC/CR/178/2013-14 vide Annexure-K are liable to be set-aside.
7. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed.
Sd/-
JUDGE MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35