Karnataka High Court
Asst. Commissioner Of Commercial ... vs Shri M.S. Ramachandra on 21 June, 2022
Bench: Chief Justice, Ashok S.Kinagi
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. RITU RAJ AWASTHI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
WRIT APPEAL NO.504 OF 2022 (L-PG)
BETWEEN:
1. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF
COMMERCIAL TAXES
LOCAL VAT OFFICE - 220,
SHIVAMOGGA - 577 205.
2. THE SECRETARY
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI H.R. SHOWRI, AGA)
AND:
1. SHRI M.S. RAMACHANDRA
S/O SRI. M. SHAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
R/O "SUDHANYA", NMC 2ND CROSS
HOSAMANE, BHADRAVATHI
SHIVAMOGGA - 577 301.
2. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER
AND CONTROLLING AUTHORITY
UNDER PAYMNET OF GRATUITY ACT 1972
MANGALURU DIVISION, MANGALURU.
3. THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER
AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER
PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT 1972, HASSAN.
... RESPONDENTS
-2-
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 06.03.2021 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.No.43459/2016 AND BE PLEASE
TO ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION OF THE APPELLANTS.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard.
2. In view of the office report, the delay in filing of
the appeal stands condoned. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2022 is
allowed.
3. This intra-Court appeal has been filed
challenging the judgment and order dated 06.03.2021
passed in W.P.No.43459/2016 (The Assistant
Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and another vs.
Sri.M.S.Ramachandra and others) whereby, the writ
petition preferred by the appellants has been dismissed on
merit and they have been directed to implement the order
at Annexure-A dated 18.06.2015 passed by respondent
No.2-Assistant Labour Commissioner and Controlling
Authority within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of a copy of the order.
4. The facts of the case in brief are that
respondent No.1 was appointed on daily wage basis in the
Department of Commercial Tax. With effect from
01.01.1990, the service of respondent No.1 was regularized
on the post of Second Division Assistant. Respondent No.1
retired on superannuation as Second Division Assistant on
30.11.2007. He was sanctioned pensionary benefits as per
the provisions of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules from
the office of the Accountant General.
5. It was on 25.08.2014 that respondent No.1
claimed that he had submitted an application in the office of
the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Mangaluru Division,
Mangaluru and Controlling Authority under the Payment of
Gratuity Act, 1972 for payment of the balance gratuity
amount. The appellants preferred objections to the said
application. The Assistant Labour Commissioner and the
Controlling Authority allowed the application of respondent
No.1 and directed appellant No.1 for payment of gratuity
with interest totally amounting to Rs.1,74,705/- within 30
days from the date of receipt of the order failing which,
from 31st day, 10% simple interest will have to be paid on
the gratuity amount.
6. It was thereafter that the appellants preferred
an appeal before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Hassan.
The Deputy Labour Commissioner, vide order dated
04.03.2016, rejected the appeal of the appellants on the
ground that the limitation prescribed for filing of the appeal
has expired.
7. The appellants, instead of depositing the
statutory amount, chose to file a writ petition before the
High Court in W.P.No.43459/2016. The said writ petition
was dismissed vide order dated 06.03.2021 on merit. It is
this order which has been challenged before us in the writ
appeal.
8. We have considered the submissions made by
learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the
appellants and gone through the record.
9. We are of the considered view that the period of
service of daily wage for the purpose of grant of gratuity
was considered by the Assistant Labour Commissioner and
a finding was recorded holding that respondent No.1 was
entitled for receipt of gratuity amount. This finding stands
confirmed after rejection of the appeal preferred by the
appellants. Even the writ petition preferred by the
appellants has been rejected on merit. The writ Court has
come to conclusion that the appeal is filed beyond the time
limit stipulated, as such, it has no power to condone the
delay beyond 120 days in view of the language employed in
Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The writ
Court has directed the appellants to comply the order dated
18.06.2015 within a period of three months from the date
of receipt of the writ Court's order failing which, respondent
No.1 is entitled to interest @10% p.a. from the date of the
order of the Controlling Authority.
10. It has been urged before us that the finding
recorded by the Assistant Labour Commissioner in his order
dated 18.06.2015 regarding entitlement of receipt of
gratuity even for the period of service rendered under the
daily wage by respondent No.1 is not sustainable in the
eyes of law.
11. We are of the considered view that once the
appeal and the writ petition preferred by the appellants
were dismissed by the concerning Courts, it is now not
open for them to raise the said plea.
12. We, even otherwise, are of the view that a writ
appeal preferred against the order arising out of the
proceedings from the Assistant Labour Commissioner is not
maintainable, reference being made to the judgment of the
Apex Court dated 26.10.2021 in the case of Caparo
Engineering India Ltd. vs. Ummed Singh Lodhi and
another (Civil Appeal Nos.5829-5830 of 2021).
13. In view of the above, the writ appeal is
dismissed.
14. The pending interlocutory applications do not
survive for consideration and accordingly stand disposed of.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
VM
