Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Controller vs The Deputy Labour Commissioner And Ors on 5 August, 2024
Author: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5679
WP No. 206272 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO. 206272 OF 2016 (L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
N.E.K.R.T.C. KALABURAGI DIVISION-II,
KALABURAGI
REP. BY CHIEF LAW OFFICER.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI DEEPAK V. BARAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY
LABOUR COMMISSIONER
& APPELLANT CONTROLING AUTHORITY,
UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT,
Digitally signed
by SUMITRA AT KALABURAGI-585103.
SHERIGAR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER
& CONTROLING AUTHORITY,
UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT,
AT KALABURAGI-585103.
3. NABISAB S/O CHAND SAB
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC: RETD., EMPLOYEE,
R/O:# 266, VIDYA NAGAR,
MSK MILL ROAD, KALABURAGI-585103.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ARATI PATIL HCGP FOR R1 AND R2)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5679
WP No. 206272 of 2016
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A
WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI THEREBY QUASHING
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29/10/2015 PASSED BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT IN AT ANNEXURE-D TO THE WRIT PETITION,
AND THEREBY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
24/01/2015 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN AT
ANNEXURE-B TO THE WRIT PETITION.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA)
1. The respondent-NEKRTC is before this Court
challenging the order passed by the competent authority
which in turn confirmed by the Appellate Authority under
the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
2. The authorities have found that the workmen was
working from 16.12.1975 but the gratuity payable to him
has been computed from the date on which he was
regularized i.e., on 1812.1987 and this was incorrect. The
authorities have accordingly held that the
respondent/workmen's services would have to be
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5679
computed from 01.06.1975 and has accordingly held that
NEKRTC would be liable to pay a sum of Rs.2,17,696/-.
3. It is the case of the NEKRTC that the services
rendered by the respondent-workmen prior to his
regularization cannot be taken into consideration as he
was only working as a Badli. Reliance is placed on the
judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
(1981) 2 SCC 238.
4. The reliance placed on the judgment rendered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court would be of no avail because in
that case the Supreme Court was dealing with a factual
situation where a private employee had employed a few
Badli employees. In this case, however, a statutory
Corporation has been found to employed the respondent
for more than 12 years continuously and therefore the
ratio laid down in that citation regarding Badli workmen
cannot be applicable.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5679
5. The authorities have found that the respondent-
workmen was working form 16.02.1975 and was
regularized on 18.12.1987. It cannot be in dispute that the
services of the respondent-workmen were regularized on
18.12.1987 only because of the long and continuous
service that he had rendered to the Corporation. If the
order of regularization is on the basis of long and
continued service, the status of the respondent's service is
a Badli would have no consequence. What is important to
be noticed is that for Payment of Gratuity under the Act,
continuous service, as defined under the Act is essential.
The status of his employment would not really be of any
material consequence if it can be established that the
service was continuous.
6. In this case, the authorities have recorded a finding
that the respondent did render continuous service as
defined under the Payment of Gratuity Act, from
16.12.1975 and therefore he would entitle for gratuity
from that date.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5679
7. I find no infirmity in the order which warrants
interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
the petition is therefore dismissed.
Sd/-
(N.S.SANJAY GOWDA)
JUDGE
MSR
