Karnataka High Court
Bangalore Metropolitan vs The Deputy Labour Commissioner on 1 July, 2011
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy
the gratuity determined and paid by the
Cerporationi That petition was 0pp(:{se'd._:
statement of objections dt.
contending that the 8*' resp0ndent..s:erVed
far 29 years 2 months and"2_Zi--~.VdaysA'frem_ 1:2.'/'«-1..97w8 to -. '
28/2/2006 and that gseriod uiyear and 24
days being the break dthfefaetixre service' for
calculating gratuity is Parties
entered i;1~j'gj{._: :dden'i1"1ents marked in
€Vid€1"1C'3- 1: having raised
p0ints:,_ifei;'V a finding that 'active
service;tendered:deaf'tne~.:_$'1'?'"iespondent was 27 years 11
months and declined' ted accept the assertion of the 3"'
Qf 'aetixieiy service' of 32 years. So also the
fl1V.5:i'i1tA§1Orit37 recorded a finding that since the
Bid last drawn Wage was 370,910/~ was
'V'..,entit1edL_t0 gratuity of ?'1,82,533/~ and after deducting
~ paid to the 3" respondent, petitioner was
ta ea hf! submits that the petition is greunded L contention that the Appeilate aeeept the deduction of 363,436/~ effected':
the SW1 respondents gratuity which was:-fr'*e:31jtte:§ to Syndicate Bank on the authoriedtten en Ex.R5 by the 3rd resp0ndesnt".~.,V_ V' "
5. Per '.eQntr2;~,"' for the Std respondent "f3x;:R:5v'hfa':3"'neither proved in evidence ':*en'e1drsement on EXR5 eonfrozntedt' reependent in the Cross eXaminettien.V the learned Counsel, Std respondent"'ha'vin_g_ the contents of Ex.R5 and the '~ _a11e:'ged; evndorsernent. thereon, it was for the petitioner to 'prex:.ex'ther and having not done so, the Appellate A2ithtorttydtfifiaeitjhstified in declining to accept the plea of 'V the"petitiQner~Corperati0n that it was duly authorised to ':j.dAeduuetV"?(33,436/- and remit the same to Syndicate
- to discharge the Bee respondents ioan. 43»
6. Having heard the learned _ V' parties, perused the pleadings anJd"ve::'a:nine~d of the Authorities, undoubtedly and marked in evidence, the"'endorsen1--en"t alleged to V have been made by the A3"? respondentvvatithorizing deduction of ?63,436/-' 'in evidence. A perusal of the dep_ositi'on"of discloses that the even make a suggestion 7i.tl_1e __8r§i" re.s_po:ldent in his cross exainiriation '7'e--i2.'er< -- alleged signature and endorsement on E2;.'f?,p5 Inuchless confront the document"., VA in . the" eaobsence of relevant material eonsgtituting substantial legal evidence of the fact in rnore"«.appropriately relating to hiving off money payable to the 3rd respondent and reniitting discharge 3" respondents alleged loan at Bank, the Appellate Authority was fully jtistified in declining to accept the plea of the petitioner h __(_forporation.
"ml 7: Even otherwise, a reading of Sub~eeeV;'{§q)i._V_of Seo.«/1,1. of the Act does not invest in _ Corporation to deduct from out of the 'w and remit it to discharge w_Vork1naLn"s_Vdebtsdfyvithed financiers. So also See. 13'&_:_ 14 of.ti1e for protection of gratuity againstkeourt déc-regs': orders in execution proceedings}. and jovefifiding effect of the Act over other enaotmente
8. thewfindings recorded by the AppellateV1}§uthorit§}',"~«in theworder impugned, cannot be fault __f'A1thongh.,$nit.H.R.Renuka, iearned Counsel for petitiorieiiv contends that there are reported opinions of that authorisation extended by
-V empioyeeshto deduct money from out of gratuity and t,rerm'_t the same towards discharge of loans secured from
-- finaneial institntionst stand on a different footing and vo uu1mnn\nw%Q»VMmRkMV§B WQx§V\W§X ' hence Sec. 13 8: 14 of the Act wouid have :10 application, in the admitted facts and the EXRS supra, cannot be countenanceci. In the result, petition denrgVi;ci"b»f r1;{:éf2ifc, -115 J % _ §fi§§*§_ Rd/5