Karnataka High Court
Karnataka Lingayat Education Society vs Siddappa Lakkapa Hudli on 25 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14253
WP No. 64664 of 2011
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 64664 OF 2011 (L-PG)
BETWEEN:
1. KARNATAKA LINGAYAT EDUCATION SOCIETY
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN BOARD OF
MANAGEMENT COLLEGE ROAD, BELGAUM.
2. KLE SOCIETY'S B.V.BELLAD LAW COLLEGE
BELGAUM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL,
LINGARAJ COLLEGE CAMPUS, BELGAUM.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B.HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI. SIDDAPPA LAKKAPPA HUDLI
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: RETIRED,
R/O: 198, SECTOR NO.II,
SHIVABASAVANAGAR, BELGAUM.
2. THE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
APPOINTED UNDER PAYMENT OF
KATTIMANI
Location: HIGH GRATUITY ACT AND ASST. LABOUR
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH COMMISSIONER, BELGAUM.
3. DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER
AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY,
UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972,
BELGAUM DIVISION, BELGAUM.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MRUTYUNJAY TATA BANGI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. PRAVEEN K.UPPAR, AGA FOR R2 AND R3)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14253
WP No. 64664 of 2011
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS
LEADING TO THE PASSING OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
30/04/2010 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN
PGA:SR:NO.112/2008 (ANNEXURE-D) AND ANOTHER ORDER
27/04/2011 PASSED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT IN NO.
PGA:APPEAL/CR-87/2010 (ANNUXURE-F) AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the
learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and learned
Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
2. Petitioner is assailing the orders dated 30.04.2010
and 27.04.2011 passed by respondent nos. 2 and 3 respectively.
In terms of the said orders, petitioner was directed to pay gratuity
by taking into account the Dearness Allowance payable to the
respondent-employee on par with the Dearness Allowance fixed
by the State Government.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would place
reliance on the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14253
HC-KAR
Karnataka Lingayat Education Society & Anr. Vs Siddappa1
wherein the Court has held that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to
decide the issue relating to service benefits claimed by the
employee. In the said judgment, since the Court has held that the
Civil Court has no jurisdiction, the observations made by the Trial
Court that the plaintiff in the said suit is not entitled to the service
benefits to be calculated based on Dearness Allowance on par
with the State Government employees is without jurisdiction.
4. Thus the question that requires to be answered is
whether the petitioner is entitled to the service benefits by
calculating Dearness Allowance on par with the Dearness
Allowance paid to the State Government employees.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would also refer to the
judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Siddartha
Educational Society vs Tumkur District Technical Institutions
Non-teaching Employees Union and another2 to contend that
the issue raised by the petitioner in this case is covered in favour
of the petitioner.
RSA No.100086/2018, disposed of on 11.02.2025
ILR 2003 Kar. 1966
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14253
HC-KAR
5. In the aforementioned judgment, the Court has held
that the expression "the pay" does not include the monetary
benefits like Dearness Allowance, House Rent Allowance and
other allowances. That being the position, the respondent No.1
cannot claim monetary benefit by urging that the Dearness
Allowance payable to the State Government employees is to be
taken into consideration while calculating the monetary service
benefits to respondent No.1.
6. It is noticed from the impugned orders that the
authorities have held that respondent No.1 is entitled to the
service benefits by taking into consideration the Dearness
Allowance on par with the State Government employees. Hence
the monetary service benefits payable by the petitioner have to be
recalculated by taking into consideration the Dearness Allowance
payable to the respondent in terms of the service conditions
governing the petitioner and respondent.
7. Hence the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition is allowed-in-part.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14253
HC-KAR
(ii) Impugned orders dated 30.04.2010 passed by the
Controlling Authority, Belgaum (Annexure - D) and 27.04.2011
passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner & Appellate
Authority, Belagavi (Annexure - F) are set aside.
(iii) The matter is remitted to the Controlling Authority
appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act and Assistant Labour
Commissioner, Belagavi - respondent no. 2 for fresh consideration
keeping in mind the observations made above.
(iv) If at all, the amount is already paid to respondent
No.1 and after adjudication, if it is found that respondent No.1 is
not entitled to the amount which he has received, the difference
amount if any, has to be reimbursed to the petitioner.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
brn
Ct:vh
