Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.47943/2015 (L – KSRTC)
BETWEEN
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, BANGALORE CENTRAL DIVISION, BENGALURU BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER. ... PETITIONER
(BY SMT.RENUKA H.R., ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING))
AND
THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY, UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, REGION 2, KARMEEKA BHAVANA, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 029.
THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND CONTROLLING AUTHORITY, UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, DIVISION 1, KARMEEKA BHAVANA, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 029.
SANAULLAKHAN S/O IMAM KHAN, ADULT, R/O UPPARAHALLI, URDU SCHOOL, MAIN ROAD, 7TH CROSS, DADA MANZIL, TUMAKURU 572 212. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2 (PHYSICAL HEARING); SRI ROOPESH KUMAR N.R., ADVOCATE FOR R3 (ABSENT))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDERS PASSED IN ANNX-B DATED 10.3.2014 PASSED BY THE R-1 ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.
The petitioner Corporation has called in question the order of the 2nd respondent-controlling
3 authority dated 18.2.2010, in terms of Annexure-A, by which the gratuity was determined to be payable to the respondent workman at Rs.3,63,881/-. The controlling authority noticing the date of retirement of the workman to be 29.2.2008 held that the workman has rendered about 28 years 11 months and 12 days of service and while computing the same, the controlling authority has computed about 29 years 11 months of service taking the date of superannuation of the workman to be 29.2.2009 as against 29.2.2008, which the authority itself records in its order.
There is an error apparent on the face of the record that the workman has retired on 29.2.2009 and not on 28.2.2008, the controlling authority has erred in determining the gratuity for 29 years 1 month as against 28 years 1 month.
4 4. The other ground is with regard to deduction of income tax on the gratuity payable to the petitioner which was beyond Rs.3,50,000/-. The workman is entitled to gratuity of Rs.3,79,911- as against Rs.3,93,439/- determined by the appellate authority. Since this amount exceeds Rs.3,50,000/- which attracts income tax, the Corporation had deducted Rs.17,221 towards income tax to be payable by the Corporation which cannot be found fault with.
For the aforesaid reasons, the order of the Controlling Authority is set aside insofar as it determines gratuity for a period of 29 years 1 month as against 28 years 1 month and insofar as it declares deduction of Rs.17,221/- towards income tax. Rest of the findings of the authority are left undisturbed.
Sd/- JUDGE Cs CT:MJ