Karnataka High Court
B. Ramaiah vs Karnataka State Pollution Control ... on 7 December, 2023
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:44466
WP No. 35814 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO. 35814 OF 2013 (S-R)
BETWEEN:
1. B. RAMAIAH
S/O BUDDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
EARLIER WORKING AS MEMBER SECRETARY
KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
BANGALORE.
SINCE RETIRED AND RESIDING AT
NO.514, 2ND A MAIN, 4TH AVENUE
TEACHERS COLONY,
KORAMANGALA 1ST BLOCK
BANGALORE-560034.
2. S RAMAKRISHNA
S/O S HANUMANTH RAO
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
EARLIER WORKING AS SENIOR
Digitally ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER
signed by
KIRAN KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION
KUMAR R
Location:
CONTROL BOARD BANGALORE,
HIGH SINCE RETIRED AND RESIDING AT NO.22/1,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA SRIRAMAMANDIRAM ROAD
BASAVANAGUDI
BANGALORE-560004.
3. R SHYAM SUNDAR
S/O K RAJA RAO
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
EARLIER WORKING AS SENIOR
ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER
KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:44466
WP No. 35814 of 2013
BANGALORE
SINCE RETIRED AND
RESIDING AT NO.141, 1ST BLOCK
EAST JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560011.
4. N NARASIMHAIAH
S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
EARLIER WORKING AS ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD, BANGALORE
SINCE RETIRED AND
RESIDING AT NO. 140, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
5TH CROSS KAMAKSHI PALYA,
BANGALORE-560079.
5. SHIVA KUAMR NAGUR
S/O MATHANTAPPA NAGUR
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
EARLIER WORKING AS DEPUTY ENVIRONMENTAL
OFFICER,
KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
BANGALORE SINCE RETIRED AND
RESIDING AT NO.C/O A M G
NAGUR, KAMALAPUR TALUK
GULBARGA DISTRICT
...PETITIONERS
(BY MS. M.L.SUVARNA, FOR SRI.K.PUTTEGOWDA., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PARISARA BHAVAN,
1 TO 5 FLOORS, NO.49
CHURCH STREET
BANGALORE-560001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
2. MEMBER SECRETARY
KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
PARISARA BHAVAN
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:44466
WP No. 35814 of 2013
1 TO 5 FLOORS, NO.49
CHURCH STREET
BANGALORE-560001.
3. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY AND
ENVIRONMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560001.
4. DIVISIONAL MANAGER
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA
JEEVAN PRAKASH, J C ROAD
BANGALORE-560001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GURURAJ JOSHI, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & R-2;
SRI.B.RAVINDRANATH, AGA FOR R-3;
SRI.H.N.KASAL, ADVOCATE FOR R-4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY TO THE
PETITIONERS AS ALSO TO EMPLOYEES RETIRED AFTER 2003
AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO GRANT THE PETITIONERS
DIFFERENCE IN GRATUITY BY INCLUDING DEARNESS
ALLOWANCE COMPONENT TO THE GRATUITY THAT IS
DETERMINED AND PAID TO THE PETITIONERS BY THE BOARD
ON THE RESPECTIVE DATES OF THEIR
RETIREMENT/VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT ALONG WITH
INTEREST AT 18% P.A FROM THE DATE THE AMOUNTS
BECAME PAYABLE UP TO THE DATE OF PAYMENT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC:44466
WP No. 35814 of 2013
ORDER
1. The petitioners are all erstwhile employees of the Karnataka State Pollution Board (for short, 'the Board'). They are before this Court questioning the denial of their gratuity in its entirety. They contend that for computing the gratuity, the Board has not taken into consideration the Dearness Allowance and the gratuity is computed solely on the basis of the Basic Pay.
2. It is their contention that the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short, 'the Act') would prevail over any Regulations made by the employer and since the wages have been defined under the statute to mean all emoluments which are earned by an employee and which are paid to him in cash and includes Dearness Allowance, the Board and the Life Insurance Corporation of India Limited ('the LIC', for short) were in error in depriving them of the gratuity without taking into consideration the Dearness Allowance. -5-
NC: 2023:KHC:44466 WP No. 35814 of 2013
3. The Board, on the other hand, contends that their Regulations contemplate only the computation of gratuity on the basis of the Basic Pay and it does not permit of inclusion of Dearness Allowance.
4. The LIC, on the other hand, contends that it had only issued a Master Policy under which they had agreed to pay the gratuity in terms of the Regulations and consequently, they cannot found fault for complying with the Regulations.
5. The word "Wages" has been defined under Section 2(s) of the Act and it reads as follows:
" Section: 2 Definitions.
In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, - x x x
(s) "wages" means all emoluments which are earned by an employee while on duty or on leave in accordance with the terms and conditions of his employment and which arc paid or arc payable to him in cash and includes dearness allowance but does not include -6- NC: 2023:KHC:44466 WP No. 35814 of 2013 any bonus, commission, house rent allowance, overtime wages and any other allowance."
6. As could be seen from the said definition, "wages" would mean all the emoluments which are earned by the employee and which are paid to him in cash. The definition categorically states the Dearness Allowance is also a part of wages. The definition, in fact, narrates those components which are excluded from the definition of wages, and they are bonus, commission, House Rent Allowance and over-time wages, and any other allowance.
7. It is, therefore, clear that the inclusion of the Dearness Allowance in the definition and the exclusion of other allowances leaves no room for doubt that while taking into consideration the wages, the component of Dearness Allowance would have to be necessarily included. As a consequence, while calculating the gratuity, it is not only the Basic Pay but also the Dearness Allowance would have to be included.
-7-
NC: 2023:KHC:44466 WP No. 35814 of 2013
8. Admittedly, in the instant case, the Dearness Allowance component has been excluded and thereby, the petitioners are given a lesser amount of gratuity.
9. The argument of the Board that their Regulations do not permit the inclusion of Dearness Allowance cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the provisions of the statute would have to prevail over the Regulations which an employer makes.
10. It is not in dispute that the provisions of the Act have not been exempted insofar as the Board is concerned by issuance of a Notification under Section 5 of the Act. It is also to be noticed that even if there was an exemption, the same would operate only if the benefits granted by the employer under its Regulations were more favourable than the benefits granted under the Act.
11. It is, therefore, clear that the provisions which are more beneficial to the employee, whether they are under the Act or under the Regulations, will have to be applied. -8-
NC: 2023:KHC:44466 WP No. 35814 of 2013
12. Since, the inclusion of Dearness Allowance would be more beneficial to the petitioners as they would, thereby, get a larger gratuity, it is obvious that the definition of wages will have to be incorporated while computing gratuity amount.
13. In the result, the writ petition is allowed.
14. The Board is directed to re-compute the gratuity amount payable, by including the Dearness Allowance component and pay the same to the petitioners within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The gratuity already paid shall be deducted from such amount.
15. The LIC, which is arrayed as respondent No.4 in this petition, would, however, not be liable to pay this amount and it is only the Board which will have to make the payment.
16. It is stated at the Bar that petitioner No.1 is no more.
-9-
NC: 2023:KHC:44466 WP No. 35814 of 2013
17. Having regard to the fact that the petition is filed seeking payment of the gratuity, the Board is directed to ensure that the gratuity that petitioner No.1 is entitled to, is paid to his legal representatives.
Sd/-
JUDGE RK CT: SN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 10