Karnataka High Court
Sri L G Sathyanarayna vs Karnataka State Road Transport ... on 29 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:30095-DB
WA No. 227 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
WRIT APPEAL NO. 227 OF 2024 (L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI L.G. SATHYANARAYNA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
S/O L. GOPALAIAH
R/O PRERASANDRA POST
CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562 104
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI S. RAJESH, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI S.B. MUKKANNAPPA, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by PRABHAKAR AND:
SWETHA
KRISHNAN
Location: High 1. KARNATAKA STATE ROAD
Court of
Karnataka TRANSPORT CORPORATION
K.B.S. DIVISION
SUBHASHNAGAR
BANGALORE - 590 009
BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLER
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF LAW OFFICER.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:30095-DB
WA No. 227 of 2024
2. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR
COMMISISONER AND
THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY
UNDER THE PAYMENT OF
GRATUITY ACT, DIVISION 2
KARMIKHA BHAVAN
BANNERGHATTA ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 029.
3. THE ASST. LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND
CONTROLLING AUTHORITY
UNDER THE PAYMENT OF
GRATUITY ACT
SUB DIVISION-5
KARMIKHA BHAVAN
BANNERGHATTA ROAD
BANGALORE - 566 029.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RENUKA H.R., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 &
SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R-2 & R-3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 9.11.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE
IN WRIT PETITION No.4490/2021 AND CONSEQUENTLY
DISMISSED THE WRIT PETITION No.4490/2021 FILED BY THE
RESPONDENT CORPORATION, UNDER THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN
AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:30095-DB
WA No. 227 of 2024
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
N. V. ANJARIA
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA)
Heard learned advocate Mr. S. Rajesh for learned advocate
Mr. S.B. Mukkannappa for the appellant, learned advocate
Smt. H.R. Renuka for respondent No.1 and learned Additional
Government Advocate Smt. Niloufer Akbar for respondent Nos.2
and 3.
2. The present writ appeal seeks to call in question the
judgment and order of learned Single Judge dated 09.11.2023 in
Writ Petition No.4490 of 2021 filed by the Karnataka State Road
Transport Corporation, Bengaluru, whereby learned Single Judge
allowed the petition and set aside the order dated 06.02.2019
passed by the Controlling Authority as well as the order dated
18.09.2019 passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment
of Gratuity Act, 1972.
3. Noticing the facts in the background, the appellant was
appointed as a Badli Conductor on 04.12.1976 under the
NC: 2024:KHC:30095-DB
Corporation. He was removed from service after three months. On
14.06.1980, he was again appointed as Badli Conductor for a
period of another three months. On 10.11.1980, the name of the
appellant was removed from the temporary select list. The
appellant retired from service on 30.06.2016. It appears that during
the period from 1976 to 1986, the appellant was not in continuous
service and he came to be appointed on 30.04.1986 pursuant to
order passed by this Court in Writ Appeal No.17721-22 of 1983.
3.1 The appellant-employee approached the Controlling
Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act putting forth the case
that he rendered his services from 04.12.1976 to 30.06.2016 for a
period of 40 years and 4 months. According to him, he drew the
basic pay of Rs.27,170/- and dearness allowance of Rs.9,781/-.
Therefore, he claimed gratuity of Rs.10,95,850/-. The grievance
was that the employer-Corporation had deposited only
Rs.8,19,628/-. Therefore, the difference of amount of Rs.2,76,228/-
was payable to him towards gratuity.
3.2 The Controlling Authority allowed the case of the appellant.
When the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation filed appeal
before the Appellant Authority under the Act of 1972, the appeal
NC: 2024:KHC:30095-DB
was dismissed and the order of the Controlling Authority came to
be confirmed. Therefore, the Corporation filed writ petition
challenging the aforesaid orders of the authorities under the Act of
1972.
3.3 The case of the Corporation was specific that the appellant
was appointed on 04.02.1986 as Badli Conductor and was
removed from service after three months. Since the appellant was
in service only for three months, it was stated that again he was
appointed on 14.06.1980 for another period of three months and
was removed on 10.11.1980. It was claimed that the services of the
appellant was not continuous from 1976 to 1986.
3.4 It was the case that after the appellant was removed from
service by the order dated 10.11.1980, whereafter writ appeal was
filed, in which, the order was passed pursuant to which he was
appointed on probation for a period of six months w.e.f.
30.04.1986. In other words, there was a gap of service of the
appellant and that he had not rendered continuous service from
1976 to 1986.
4. Thereafter, the Corporation had filed the instant Writ Petition
No.4490 of 2021, wherein learned Single Judge observed thus,
NC: 2024:KHC:30095-DB
while allowing the petition. Extracting the observations and finding
in paragraph 6,
"It is not in dispute that the third respondent was
appointed as a Badli Conductor back in the year 1976.
However, he was removed from service and he was
reinstated as Probationer only by virtue of the order
passed by this Court in W.A.No.17721-22/1983 with
effect from 30.04.1986. Suffice it to note that the third
respondent has not rendered continuous service from
1976 to 1986. This aspect of the matter has been
overlooked by the Gratuity Authorities. When the third
respondent has not rendered continuous service for
ten years, the question of gratuity for that period does
not arise. For the reasons stated above, the orders of
the Gratuity Authorities are liable to be set-aside.
Accordingly, it is set-aside."
4.1 The aforesaid findings are eminently proper. The record
supports the said findings.
5. There is no gainsaying that the appellant was appointed on
30.04.1986 as a fresh appointee on probation for a period of six
months on pay of Rs. 500/- in the pay scale of Rs. 500-730. There
is no denial that services prior to 1986 was not continuous service.
Furthermore, also figures on record, the Divisional Establishment
Order No.153 of 1986 dated 31.05.1986. It also shows that the
appellant was amongst those who were appointed as conductors
on probation for a period of six months.
NC: 2024:KHC:30095-DB
5.1 In view of above factual position established, it was clearly
suggested that the appellant had not rendered continuous service
from 1976 to 1986. His services could not have been counted to 40
years and 4 months as continuous service, as claimed by him
before the payment of gratuity authorities. He was entitled to the
gratuity from the date of appointment 30.04.1986 to the date of
superannuation which is 30.06.2016 making total period of service
to be 30 years and 2 months. The gratuity accordingly payable has
been paid to the appellant.
6. No error could be booked in the order of learned Single
Judge allowing the petition of the Corporation.
7. The present appeal stands meritless and the same is
dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the appeal, the interlocutory
application would not survive and it stands accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
(N. V. ANJARIA)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(K V ARAVIND)
JUDGE
KPS
