Karnataka High Court
Managing Director K S R T C vs Lawrence D ' Souza on 6 November, 2008
Author: H N Nagamohan Das
Bench: H N Nagamohan Das
IN THE ¥~§GH COURT CF KARNATAKA AT B§\l'EGALOR_E
DATED THIS THE 6m DAY OF NOVEZVEER, 2008
BEFORE
um HONBLE arm. JUSTICE NAG,Al\-iOHA.?\Z' ';':.-ggs« f V' '
WRIT PETITION Na.733s;z9a*f(L;RE§3) ;
BETWEEN :
2-u...---.--a-.-----
MANAGING DIRECTOR, 1:: 3 RT (3
CENTRAL omcg, K.H.ROA]3 _
BANGALORE ' -_ , ~ V
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, I<;s.:I:.T;<:.
MALNGALOREDIVISEON V. .%
REPRESENTEDBY rrjs' _' " _ - '
crmr? LAW OFFICi_8R. '~* _ '«.,,....£'ETI"fION;ER
(By Sri. K A
AND:
1 Sri. LAWRENCE"D'SOUZ§?..
SIC' P.F.B*S'OUZA "
1<s:'.17, M:5'&}»EGALAI:9E£V1 NAGAR
A ..... .. "
;'£SS1."é'.'»I"2'*'v..3..\'£"'V§'.V M30133 COMMISSIONER
. '~-.;5.ND'€:Qm'goLLn¢G AUI'I~I{)RIFY
V L'NDER'P.F..ACT
1v[AN{}AI,.£§RE DIVISION 573002
" * 3'" X TDEPLITY 1..AB{}UR COMMISSIONER
V. " ~ ' AEPELLATE AUTHORITY
* -ma GRATUITY ACT
Hassm REGIQN
I HASSAN. RESPONDENTS
_ W * ~ {By Sri. RAIE-SH RA! K, ADV, FOR 12:1
Sri. IAGADEESH MUNDARGI, AGA, FOR R~2 & 3}
-on-on-on
oiwv
THIS 'ȴ'RI'f PETITION IS FILED UNDER ALRTICLES 226 AND
227 OF HE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A ?RAYE.R
QUASH THE QRDER DT. 28.3.2066 AN!) TEE, ORDER DT. 11.9L'£3i3£S
PJXSSEI} BY THE; R2 AND R3 RES13ECTIVELY
AND C. A193 ETC,
ms WRIT PEHTION COMING ON FOR ' '
1--mAR1:~:G W B GROU? THIS pm', 'I'§'IE....CC)L?R*i'" "2s;m3E
F-:}LL(}'WIE~$(}; .
Qflfifl
In this Writ petition the petitionfi gfayefii ' w1;i:t':§ the
fiature ef certiorari to quash the 5- A and
the order dated 11.09.2006 M Anne}}:r§:AV_C' wrig passed by the
second and third r¢sp'z;.a%;§ients ::A_:esp:§{i€ive'!§?:"'Léiiiwzacfiigig Ithe patitioner W
C-orperatian to pair ' Rs.29;?85:'».
2. joined the service of getitiomzr
* the Kamata}e33v._$taie x§é9z;d_Tra:_i:spofl Cerperation (for Shfifi 'the
..:;jo1'porati:i};14) C21 22.{§8'.'£V9'§'{_}____3s an Artisan and retired fmm service on
"~31.e1j.199o'. _;m::¢;~.4g}e::r¢:nent, the petitioner ~ Cerporation had paid the
ga't"I1~itj*'T.-aznéiiiifjtq respondent. The firs: respondent being not
V satisfie:i7'ae'ith..' giaarrnent of gratuity amount made 333' the petitioner -
H " .44(Z'<;ir';3+::r;a,t__i01*: Vafipreached the second respondent under the Paymcnt of
£0! claiming the baiance ameuni: of Rs,iG,48£3r'-, The pa-titianer
:'1f,'a3I:§t:3rati<2:1 entered appearance before the seeand respondant »
Cénmfling Authority and filed ifibjfifififlilfi inter aiia contending that the
Corporaiien appeénted the firs: respnnd-ant on £6.08. 19? 1 and an that basis
«:7**"'"
3
they caicuiated the gmitzitry' amount and paid in all 3. sum of Rs.86,G12:'-
and therefore the Cerporatien is not liable to pay any amount as claimed
by the first respendent. On the basis sf pleadings and evidence, the sV¢¢et_.té.it._V
resgondent - Controliing Autherity gassed the irnpugaed orde;*'dir¢cu:tt;_;tg'.j' ''
the petitioner ~ Corperation ta pay the balance cf $'£l?l.iit3*""'i1.<%Il(}E:iV'.I1iVv"(}f.;' '
125.2938 5:3 on the basis ef the previous getjvice "i'€fIId€'t'€C3
respondent in a gxivate transpcart campany malted CECT f§*0nit»the'.:g5é:'ar'3§'§.? if
to 19?(}. Aggieved by this ordar of fl1e--'tVs&:a:pnd i't3'Sfi(1tIi€1€I1t Cfgxatrgltixttig V
Auflxerity, the petitionar Corporation ffiéév. gppeé.1"h§fcré tit; third
respondent -- Appaliate Auth(tfiI3s.¢_ ;.ré§p$3;1c§ent Q 5-Xjiapaliate
Authority by appiying the provisit:)é'is_t_:}f tiaszfiarttract Carriages
(Acquisition) Act, 1976_t{feur shaft "tlte order of the
second regpéndeztt - Cfit1}*f{J.1_:Iitig. 4.¥%1ith0ri't3" and dismissed the: appeai fiieé
by the petitienef':Cerpéiatiéixat this writ petitian.
3.;E<>a;'c:i ar5;gu."m:%1ts"'en xbeth the side and gaerrused the antire Writ
_4." Contract Carriages (assquisitien) Act name into
V farce £3,326 y:3r1?--}'and the same is pmspective in nature. Saetion 19(3)
_ Qéfnthe t%ct*~s§ia:3ifies, that befere thxa aommenzement cf the Act if an
.__af$tfi1Q§'éé'~«had wcrrked in the acquired gropezty, than he will -continue as
.___"tite etxapieyee of the Coxporatien fmm the date ef notification, an the $31116
aw»
terms and conditions apotieable. It is not in dispute that on the date of
notification under the Act the first respondent was not emotoyed in
Bus acquired under the Act. Therefore the orovieioos of .,
apoiieation to the first resoondent.
5. The first respondent contends that he_joit1eg:i"the~ tipetitioner
Corporation on 22.08.1970. On the other hand'-._tI1e
contends that the first respondent joi1:edi.§1e«--servieee ._of the
16.08.19? 1. As against this rival eonteotioerttte otodoeed by
the petitioner Corporation estabtigge toe :«gVg;atdA.the_» first Atedsjpottdent
joined the services of the Coroo:a.tioo.Vodo._V the first
respondent has not p.'t:'teeéj.V.arty tti.;te1?iai" otfleeofd "£€}wi):'0V6 and estahiish
that he joineczi ttte. xPxeti--tiot;e:rt.Cot;:to:etion.'on 22.08.19'f(3. Therefote the
Corporation cotettieted payeoie to the first respondent
by taking §1':to .eonstde*ratioo"his.§'oit1tng date as 16.08. 19171 and the some is
~V.ineeeo£o'ance7WitIi tow. Therefore the petitioner - Corporation is not iiabie
to ' esttount to first respondent for the period prior to
16.08.1§?i7},. Bottzdti1edV;Cootrot1ir:g Authority and the Appellate Authority
-. 'Without corteidering this aspect of the matter committed an ifiegeiity in
the impogted orders directing the petitioner Corporation to pay
.___"tiE:'e beglextee gratuity amount.
6. For the reaeone stated above, the foilowing;
(jA:'_;x.,'k
ORDER
i. Writ pefition is hereby aliowed.
The impugxed erder dated 28.03.2006 - Azmezguré' " V. tits ordar dated 11.09.2006 ~«~ Annexure * H petition passed by the sectyzidman<i&£?:;ird_;.z€é;s;é¢;:1§Ienis respecfiveiy are hereby c;uashed:"C}re::i:%_faé£:l accbrd£:1gV!y:. " " ' ~ ., ' LRS.:"G7112008.