Karnataka High Court
The Principal vs Smt Jayamma W/O M Ramakrishna on 29 October, 2013
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.BILLAPPA
WRIT PETITION No.8442/2012 (L-PG)
BETWEEN:
The Principal
Engineering Staff
Training College
K.E.R.S, K.R.S.
Mandya District. ...Petitioner
(By Sri.C.S.Indresh, HCGP)
AND:
Smt.Jayamma,
W/o.M.Ramakrishna,
Hiredevi Layout,
Belagola,
Mandya District. ...Respondent
(Respondent - Served)
*******
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution praying to quash the judgment order dated
16.3.2011 passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner and
the authority under the payment of Gratuity Act, Mysore sub-
division, Mysore vide Annexure-E.
2
This Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in 'B'
group this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question, the order dated 16-3-2011, passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner and Controlling Authority under the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, vide Annexure-E.
2. By the impugned order at Annexure-E, the Controlling Authority under the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 has directed the petitioner to pay the difference amount of `.15,904/- with interest at 10% from 20.4.1998 till payment.
3. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
4. Briefly stated the facts are;
The respondent's husband Sri.M.Ramakrishna joined the duty on 1-9-1974 as Group-D employee on daily wage 3 basis. He was transferred to the petitioner's college on 2-4- 1988. The services of respondent's husband were regularized on 1-1-1990. The respondent's husband died on 19-3-1998. The respondent filed application dated 20.6.2008 before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, claiming gratuity.
5. The petitioner resisted the application contending that the respondent's husband was appointed on daily wage basis and his services were regularized on 1-1-1990. After the death of respondent's husband, the petitioner had paid a sum of `.13,109/- towards earned leave encashment, a sum of `.1,000/- towards funeral expenses, a sum of `.20,000/- towards compulsory Insurance, a sum of `.3,339/- towards savings fund and a sum of `.24,624/- towards DCRG. Compassionate appointment was given to Yogesh, the son of M.Ramakrishna. Therefore, the respondent is not entitled for any gratuity.
4
6. The Controlling Authority under payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 has passed the impugned order directing the petitioner to pay a sum of `.15,904/- with interest at 10% from 20-4-1998 till payment. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
7. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. He also submitted that after the death of M.Ramakrishna, all his service benefits and compassionate appointment have been given. The respondent is not entitled for any gratuity and therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law.
8. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader.
9. I do not find any merit in the submission of the learned Government Pleader. It is not in dispute that the respondent's husband M.Ramakrishna joined duty on 1-9- 1974 as Group-D employee. His services have been 5 regularized on 1-1-1990. He died on 19-3-1998. After his death, his service benefits and compassionate appointment have been given. That is not a reason to deny the gratuity. The Controlling Authority has rightly determined the gratuity at `.40,528/- and deducting a sum of `.24,624/- which is already paid, the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of `.15,904/- with interest at 10% from 20.4.1998 till payment which is justified in law. It does not call for interference. There is no merit in this writ petition and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE.
NT/-