[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Bharat Gold Mines Ex Employees ... vs Bharath Gold Mines Ltd on 23 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:16338
CA No. 144 of 2024
IN COP No. 180 of 2000
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
COMPANY APPLICATION NO.144 OF 2024
IN
COMPANY PETITION NO.180 OF 2000
BETWEEN:
1. BHARAT GOLD MINES EX-EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION,
KOLAR GOLD FIELDS,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
SRI C VIJAYARAGHAVAN,
S/O LATE CHINNIAN,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
R/A NO.80, 2 POST OFFICE BLOCK,
MARIKUPPAM POST, KOLAR GOLD FIELDS-563119.
2. SRI G Y MILLER,
S/O YESUDAS,
Digitally
signed by AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
PRAMILA G V EX-EMPLOYEES BGML AFFORISTATION DEPARTMENT,
Location: NO.33, BANDLAN, OORGAU POST,
HIGH COURT KOLAR GOLD FIELDS-563120.
OF ...APPLICANTS
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI H SANNAMALIGAI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
BHARATH GOLD MINES LTD.,
SUVARNA BHAVAN, OORGAUM POST,
K G F-563120,REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:16338
CA No. 144 of 2024
IN COP No. 180 of 2000
HC-KAR
2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF INDIA,
DEPARTMENT OF MINES, MINISTRY OF MINES,
SHASTRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI T RAJARAM, ADVOCATE)
THIS COMPANY APPLICATION IS FILED UNDER RULE 9 OF
THE COMPANIES COURT RULE 1959 AND SECTION 151 OF THE
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908 PRAYING TO i) IMPLEMENT
THE ORDER DATED 30.05.2017 PASSED BY THE CONTROLLING
AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972 AND
ASST. LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL) BENGALURU, AT
ANNEXURE - 'A', FOR PAYMENT OF SIMPLE INTEREST AT 10%
PER ANNUM ON THE AMOUNT PAID AS GRATUITY FOR THE
PERIOD FROM 01.03.2001 TO 12.10.2015, TO 97 APPLICANTS
MENTIONED IN THE ORDER AND ETC.
THIS APPLICATION COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
ORAL ORDER
This application is filed to implement the order dated
30.05.2017 passed by the Controlling Authority under the
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short 'Act, 1972').
2. The applicants have claimed simple interest at
the rate of 10% per annum on the amount of gratuity for
the period 01.03.2001 to 12.10.2015 to the 97 applicants
mentioned in the order passed by the Controlling
Authority.
NC: 2026:KHC:16338
HC-KAR
3. The prayer is also made to direct 15% interest
per annum for further delay in payment from 13.10.2015
till the actual amount is paid.
4. The application is filed by the Association of Ex-
employees Union of Bharat Gold Mines based on the the
order dated 30.05.2017 passed by the Controlling
Authority under the Act of 1972.
5. The first respondent has opposed the said
application on the premise that the interest is already paid
and no amount is due to the 97 employees referred to in
the Controlling Authority's order.
6. To substantiate the contention that amount is
paid, learned counsel for the first respondent has filed
statement of objection along with the documents. Same is
taken on record.
7. The applicant has produced the order dated
30.05.2017 passed by the Controlling Authority. Said
NC: 2026:KHC:16338
HC-KAR
order also refers to 97 employees on whose behalf the
claim is made.
8. The respondent has filed an appeal against the
said order before the Appellate Authority.
9. It is noticed from the order dated 31.07.2019,
the Writ Petition No.13399/2019 filed by the first
respondent-management challenging the order passed by
the Controlling Authority, and the order dated 03.12.2018
passed by the Appellate Authority is dismissed. Under the
circumstances, there is no dispute that the order passed
by the Controlling Authority on 30.05.2017 has attained
finality.
10. To substantiate the contention that the
payment is made, the learned counsel for the respondent
would refer to Annexure-R5, the statement of account
relating to alleged payment. The Court has perused the
said statement. It is noticed that the first respondent has
calculated 10% interest on the gratuity amount paid from
01.03.2001 to 12.10.2015. However, what is required to
NC: 2026:KHC:16338
HC-KAR
be noticed is the Controlling Authority has recorded a
finding on 31.05.2017 that interest is not paid. At this
juncture, it is relevant to notice the finding recorded by
the Controlling Authority which reads as under:-
"8. There is no dispute that the Respondent has
paid gratuity amount on 13.10.2015 in most of the cases
and in cases where the ex-employees had died, the
gratuity amount was paid a little later. So, even if we
consider that all of them were paid gratuity amount on
13.10.2015, it was paid after a period of 14 years, 9
months and 12 days from the last working day of the
applicants. The Gratuity Act provides the remedy for delay
in the payment of gratuity amount by way of simple
interest for the delayed period (Section 7(3-A)). The
interest on delayed payment of gratuity is not payable only
when the fault in delayed payment is attributable to the
employee. But this does not appear to be the case here.
The delay in payment of the gratuity is because of a long
drawn out legal battle between the Respondent Company
and the Union representing the applicants. Under these
circumstances, I am of the opinion that the applicants are
justified in their claim for the delayed payment of
gratuity."
11. In the said order, the Controlling Authority has
referred to Section 7(3-A) of the Act, 1972 and has come
NC: 2026:KHC:16338
HC-KAR
to the conclusion that the gratuity is paid on 13.10.2015,
14 years, 9 months and 12 days after the last working day
of the applicants. If at all the interest was paid as
contented by the first respondent, the Controlling
Authority would not have passed a direction to pay the
interest as required under Section 7(3) of the Act, 1972.
The statement produced by the respondent No.1 at
Annexure-R5 does not indicate any payment after
31.05.2017 the date of the order passed by the Controlling
Authority.
12. Under these circumstances, the Court is unable
to accept the contention that interest is paid. If such
contention is accepted, it amounts to setting aside the
order passed by the Controlling Authority as well as the
Appellate Authority as well as the order passed by this
Court in Writ Petition No.13399/2019 which have already
attained finality.
13. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 would
contend that the interest which the applicants are claiming
NC: 2026:KHC:16338
HC-KAR
is in excess of what is payable towards the gratuity. He
would refer to Section 8 of the Act, 1972 to contend that
interest cannot exceed the principal amount and would
urge that the application has to be dismissed.
14. At this juncture, it is necessary to refer to
Section 7(3-A) of Act, 1972 as well as Section 8 of Act,
1972. As can be noticed from Section 8 of the Act, 1972,
the proviso would put a cap on the compound interest
payable on the gratuity amount. From the proviso, it is
seen that the compound interest payable cannot exceed
the principal amount. However, no such restriction is
found on the interest payable under Section 7(3-A) of the
Act, 1972.
15. This being the position, the contention that the
interest payable cannot exceed the principal amount is not
accepted.
16. It is submitted that the respondent No.1 in the
statement of objection has referred to the payment made
to 69 employees in the year 2022.
NC: 2026:KHC:16338
HC-KAR
17. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit
that said payment is admitted. However, said payment is
not towards complete discharge of the liability imposed by
the Controlling Authority.
18. Under these circumstances excluding the
amounts paid to 69 employees referred to above, the
balance amount is to be paid at the rate of 10% per
annum from 01.03.2001 to 12.10.2015.
19. It is also noticed that there is a considerable
delay on the part of the first respondent in making
payment. The amount due shall be paid within 60 days
from today, failing which, the applicants are at liberty to
move this Court for payment of appropriate cost.
20. Accordingly, the application is allowed in part.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
CHS
List No.: Sl No.:
