Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY JANUARY, 2017 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION No. 29708/2009 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN:
SR. DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, K S R T C, MANGALORE DIVISION, MANGALORE,
NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER. K S R T C CENTRAL OFFICE, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560027. ... PETITIONER (BY SMT. H. R. RENUKA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE DLC & APPELLATE AUTHORITY, HASSAN REGION, HASSAN.
THE ALC AND CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, MANGALORE DIVISION, MANGALORE.
SRI A. RAMACHANDRA, GOWRI NILAYA, KANCHIKATTE KUMBLA PANCHAYATH KASARAGOD TALUK, KERALA STATE. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI D. ASHWATHAPPA, AGA FOR R1 & R2; R3 SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2, IN CASE No. PGA/SR/78/07 DATED 31.1.09, PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-A & ORDER PASSED BY THE R1, IN APPEAL NO.PGA:SR-11/08-09 DATED 4.8.09, VIDE ANNEXURE-B.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The Corporation filed the present writ petition for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 04.08.2009 passed by respondent No.1 and the order dated 31.01.2009 passed by the respondent No.2 directing the petitioner Corporation to pay a sum of `38,412/- with interest of `15,386/- calculated at the rate of 10% from 30.01.2015, totaling to `53,798/-.
It is the case of the petitioner that the 3rd respondent workman was appointed as a driver in the Corporation on 18.07.1976 and retired from service on 31.12.2004 after completion of 28 years 5 months 13 days of service in the Corporation, out of which he was kept under suspension for 141 days and the actual
3 service for payment of gratuity was considered as 28 years. At the time of retirement, the workman was drawing basic pay of `8,390/-. Therefore, the workman was entitled to a sum of `2,38,416/- out of which Corporation had paid `2,04,043/- vide cheque No.173044 dated 10.01.2005 and `12,180/- vide cheque No.758369 dated 09.06.2006 and the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not considered the same. Therefore, petitioner is before this Court for the relief sought for.
Respondent No.3, though served, has remained unrepresented.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner- Corporation and learned AGA for respondents 1 and 2.
Smt.H.R.Renuka, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the 3rd respondent was appointed on 18.07.1976 and retired from service on
4 31.12.2004 and the amount payable was `2,38,416/- out of which `2,04,043/- was paid on 10.01.2015 vide cheque No.173044 and `12,180/- was paid on 09.06.2006 vide cheque No.758369 and the balance to be paid to the workman would be `26,232/- with interest at 10%. Therefore, she submits that the impugned order passed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 has to be modified to that effect.
Per contra, Sri D.Ashwathappa, learned AGA sought to justify the impugned order passed by the authorities below.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis, it is undisputed fact that the 3rd respondent workman was appointed as a driver in the petitioner Corporation on 18.07.1976 and retired from service on 31.12.2004 and the gratuity amount payable to the workman was `2,38,416/-. It is also not in dispute that the Corporation has paid `2,04,043/- vide cheque
5 No.173044 dated 10.01.2005 and `12,180/- vide cheque No.758369 dated 09.06.2006. In view of the same, petitioner is liable to pay to the workman balance amount of `26,232/- and interest on the said sum from the date of application i.e., 18.12.2007 till the date of deposit i.e., 20.02.2009 with interest at 10%. The said aspect of the matter has not been considered by the authorities below.
Since the 3rd respondent workman is unrepresented, though served in this petition, this Court declines to remand the matter. and the calculation made by the authorities ignoring payment of `12,180/- through cheque No.758369
dated 09.06.2006 has to be deducted out of `38,412/- determined by the authorities. Thus, the amount payable to the 3rd respondent is only `26,232/- and is entitled to interest at 10% from 18.12.2007 to 20.02.2009.
In view of the aforesaid reasons, writ petition is allowed in part. The impugned orders passed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are hereby modified and the 3rd respondent workman is entitled to difference of gratuity of `26,232/- with interest at 10% from the date of application i.e., 18.12.2007 till the date of deposit i.e., 20.02.2009.
The 2nd respondent is directed to pay a sum of `26,232/- with interest thereon at 10% from 18.12.2007 till 20.02.2009 to the 3rd respondent and the remaining amount, if any, shall be refunded to the petitioner Corporation. It is also open for the petitioner Corporation to approach the concerned Income Tax Department for refund of `17,641/-.
Sd/-
JUDGE
kcm