Abdul Salim vs The Divisional Controller
2025 Latest Caselaw 3574 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Abdul Salim vs The Divisional Controller on 5 February, 2025

                                                -1-
                                                               NC: 2025:KHC:5372
                                                         WP No. 42228 of 2014




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                          DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

                                             BEFORE
                        THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
                          WRIT PETITION NO. 42228 OF 2014 (L-KSRTC)
                   BETWEEN:
                   ABDUL SALIM,
                   S/O ABDUL WAHAB SAB,
                   AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
                   SENIOR CITIZEN,
                   R/AT 13TH CROSS,
                   P.H.COLONY, B.B.ROAD,
                   TUMKUR-572101,
                   (SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED).
                                                                   ...PETITIONER
                   (BY SRI LAKSHMAN RAO, ADVOCATE)
                   AND:
                   1.    THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
                         K.S.R.T.C, CENTRAL DIVISION OFFICE,
                         K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR,
                         BANGALORE-560027.

Digitally signed
by BELUR           2.    THE ASSSITANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER
RANGADHAMA               & CONTROLLING AUTHORITY,
NANDINI
                         UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY
Location: HIGH
COURT OF                 ACT 1972, DIVISION-4, KARMIKA
KARNATAKA                BHAVAN, BANNERUGHATTA ROAD,
                         BANGALORE-560029.

                   3.  THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMISSIONER
                       & APPELLATE AUTHORITY
                       UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT 1972,
                       REGION-2, KARMIKABHAVAN,
                       BANGALORE-560029.
                                                          ...RESPONDENTS
                   (BY SMT H R RENUKA, ADVOCATE FOR R1,
                    SMT RASHMI RAO, HCGP FOR R2 AND R3)
                                     -2-
                                                    NC: 2025:KHC:5372
                                               WP No. 42228 of 2014




     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE
A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER TO
MODIFY THE IMPUGNED ORDERS PASSED BY THE R-2 AND R-3
DATED 7.7.2010 AND DATED 23.1.2013 VIDE ANN-A AND B
RESPECTIVELY AND TO CALCULATE GRATUITY PER BINDING
SETTLEMENT DATED 17.7.1989 VIDE ANN-C AND ETC.

    THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM:       HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE


                               ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed assailing the order dated

07.07.2010 passed by the Controlling Authority as well as

the order dated 23.01.2013 passed by the Appellate

Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short

'Act of 1972').

2. The petitioner is a retired employee of the

respondent-Corporation. He raised a grievance before the

Controlling Authority on the premise that his gratuity amount

has been deducted without there being any authority to

deduct the said amount. Thus, he made a claim for payment

of Rs.1,66,394/- and he also claimed interest at the rate of

10% on the said amount.

NC: 2025:KHC:5372

3. The respondent-Corporation resisted the claim.

The respondent-Corporation took a contention that the

petitioner has authorised deduction of the gratuity amount

towards payment of loan availed by the petitioner. The

Controlling Authority on considering the materials on record

has held that the deduction is justified and accordingly

passed an order to pay a sum of Rs.31,512/- to the

petitioner along with 10% interest.

4. Aggrieved by the aforementioned order passed by

the Controlling Authority, the respondent-Corporation filed

an appeal before the Appellate Authority. In terms of order

dated 23.01.2013, the Appellate Authority allowed the

appeal in part and reduced the interest from 10% to 6%.

The Appellate Authority referred to the judgment of the

Division Bench of this Court in the case of Management of

KSRTC vs Krishna Reddy1 to reduce the interest from 10%

to 6%.

5. Aggrieved by the order reducing interest from

10% to 6% and also the order passed by the Controlling

NC: 2025:KHC:5372

Authority partially rejecting the claim petition, the petitioner

is before this Court.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend

that the respondent-Corporation erred in deducting the

amount from the gratuity account as there is a prohibition

under Section 13 of the Act of 1972. It is also his further

contention that the Appellate Authority could not have

reduced the interest from 10% to 6% awarded by the

Controlling Authority.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-

Corporation would contend that the petitioner cannot

question the order of the Controlling Authority as he has not

filed appeal before the Appellate Authority. Having accepted

the order of the Controlling Authority, the petitioner can only

urge a contention relating to reduction of interest reduced by

the Appellate Authority.

8. This Court has considered the contentions raised

at the bar and perused the records.