Sri Mohan Rao vs The Deputy Labour Commissioner
2023 Latest Caselaw 7654 Kant

                                                 -1-
                                                              NC: 2023:KHC:40461
                                                         WP No. 56756 of 2017




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                            DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

                                               BEFORE
                              THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
                             WRIT PETITION NO.56756 OF 2017 (L-KSRTC)
                      BETWEEN:

                      SRI. MOHAN RAO
                      AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS,
                      S/O LATE M.RAMESH,
                      NO: 465/33, 1ST FLOOR
                      8TH MAIN, 3RD CROSS,
                      VIJAYANAGAR,
                      BENGALURU - 560 040.
                                                                   ...PETITIONER
                      (BY SRI. S.B.MUKKANNAPPA., ADVOCATE)

                      AND:

                      1.    THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER,
                            THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT,
                            HASSAN REGION,
                            HASSAN - 573 201.
Digitally signed by
THEJASKUMAR N         2.    THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER
Location: HIGH
COURT OF                    UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT,
KARNATAKA                   CHIKKAMAGALURU, DIVISION,
                            CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101.

                      3.    THE WORKS MANAGER,
                            REGIONAL WORKSHOP,
                            KSRTC, HASSAN DIVISION,
                            HASSAN - 573 201.
                                                                 ...RESPONDENTS
                      (BY SMT. V.SPOORTHI., HCGP FOR R1 & 2;
                          SMT. H.R.RENUKA., ADVOCATE FOR R3)
                                  -2-
                                            NC: 2023:KHC:40461
                                         WP No. 56756 of 2017




      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN
RELIEFS.


      THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
                            ORDER

Sri.S.B.Mukkannappa., learned counsel for the petitioner,

Smt.V.Spoorthi., learned HCGP for respondents 1 & 2 and

Smt.H.R.Renuka., learned counsel for respondent No.3 have

appeared in person.

2. The brief facts are these:

The petitioner was appointed as a Special Grade Clerk in

KIMCO in the year 1960. KIMCO was taken over by the KSRTC

in the year 1996. The petitioner was transferred to KSRTC and

he has been absorbed as an Assistant Marketing Officer on

01.10.1996. He was retired from the service on attaining the

age of superannuation on 30.06.1997. The respondent

Corporation paid the gratuity in a sum of Rs.1,23,950/-

(Rupees One Lakh Twenty Three Thousand Nine Hundred and

NC: 2023:KHC:40461 WP No. 56756 of 2017

Fifty only) to the petitioner. The petitioner claimed the

difference of gratuity in a sum of Rs.1,10,852/- (Rupees One

Lakh Ten Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty Two only) in terms

of the Government Order dated: 28.11.1995. The petitioner

filed W.P.No.41135/2003 before this Court seeking direction for

payment of difference in gratuity. The Writ Petition filed by the

petitioner came to be disposed of on 01.03.2007 for settlement

of gratuity in terms of Judgment passed by the Apex Court in

R.KRISHNA REDDY's case.

The third respondent rejected the claim of the petitioner

and issued an endorsement on 10.04.2008. The petitioner filed

a petition before the second respondent claiming difference in

gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act in Dispute No.

PGA/SR.16/2009-10. The third respondent rejected the petition

on 29.02.2012. The petitioner filed an appeal before the first

respondent in No.DLC/PGA/SR-16/2012-13. The first

respondent rejected the appeal on 21.11.2012. The petitioner

filed a Writ Petition in No.38284/2013 before this Court and

questioned the orders of the Gratuity Authorities. This Court on

24.10.2016, quashed the impugned order and matter was

NC: 2023:KHC:40461 WP No. 56756 of 2017

remitted to the first respondent for fresh disposal in accordance

with law. On 10.10.2017, the second respondent rejected the

appeal without looking into the observation made by this Court

in Writ Petition. It is this order that is called into question in

this Writ Petition on several grounds as set-out in the

Memorandum of Writ Petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner and the

respondents have urged several contentions. Heard, the

contentions urged on behalf of the respective parties and

perused the Writ papers with utmost care.

4. The principal ground on which this Court is asked to

quash the order dated:10.10.2017 passed by the second

respondent is that the Authority has overlooked the observation

made by this Court in the Writ Petition and has rejected the

claim of the petitioner.

5. Sri.S.B.Mukkannappa., learned counsel for the

petitioner in presenting his arguments drew the attention of the

Court to the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.38284/2013

vide Annexure-G to contend that the Coordinate Bench of this

NC: 2023:KHC:40461 WP No. 56756 of 2017

Court has specifically given a finding that the terminal benefits

of the petitioner should be regulated with reference to the

agreements/ orders in force as on the date of his retirement

and not with reference to the subsequent Memorandum of

Settlement dated:17.04.1999 entered into by the KSRTC and

the workmen of KSRTC Regional Workshop, Hassan.

In reply, learned counsel Smt.H.R.Renuka., appearing on

behalf of the Corporation submits that there are several

contentions which are required to be urged about Settlement

dated:03.04.1996 and also Settlement dated:17.04.1999.

Hence, an opportunity may be accorded to the Corporation to

urge those contentions before the second respondent.

Perused the order passed by this Court in

W.P.No.38284/2013 with utmost care. A perusal of the same

would reveal that this Court has given a finding that the

terminal benefits of the petitioner should be regulated with

reference to the agreements/ orders in force as on the date of

the retirement of the petitioner and not with reference to the

subsequent Memorandum of Settlement dated:17.04.1999. I

NC: 2023:KHC:40461 WP No. 56756 of 2017

have also perused the impugned order with utmost care.

Except for noticing the order passed by this Court in

W.P.No.38284/2013, the Authority has not dealt with the

matter as directed by this Court. Therefore, the order dated:

10.10.2017 passed by the second respondent is liable to be

set-aside and the matter requires a remand.

6. The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The order

dated:10.10.2017 passed by the second respondent in ¥ÀæPÀgÀt

¸ÀASÉå:¸ÀPÁDa/¦fJ.ªÉÄîä£À«/01/2016-17 vide Annexure-H is quashed.

The matter is remanded to the second respondent for fresh

consideration. The petitioner and the third respondent are at a

liberty to urge their contentions.

7. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed and

remanded.

Taking note of the age of the petitioner, the second

respondent is directed to dispose of the appeal in accordance

with the law on or before 31.01.2024.

NC: 2023:KHC:40461 WP No. 56756 of 2017

Since the petitioner and the third respondent are

represented by their respective counsel, they are directed to

appear before the second respondent on 01.12.2023 without

awaiting further notice.

Sd/-

JUDGE

TKN