Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2016 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION No.53705/2013 (S-KSRTC) BETWEEN:
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION MYSORE RURAL DIVISION MYSORE. BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER, KSRTC, BANGALORE-27. ... PETITIONER
(BY SMT. RENUKA H. R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT REGION 2, KARMEKA BHAVAN, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE 560 029.
THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER, AND CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, MYSORE DIVISION MYSORE-570001.
2 3. K. B. SOMIAH, S/O K. A. BELLIAYAPPA, V. BADAGA VILLAGE, KUTTANDA POST, VIRAJPET TALUK, SOUTH COORG, COORG DISTRICT-571218. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI T. ASHWATHAPPA, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI JAGADEESHACHARI, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDERS MADE DATED 26.10.2011 VIDE ANNEXURE-F PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND DATED 6.2.2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-G PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARNG IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner Corporation filed the present writ petition to quash the impugned order dated 26.10.2011, Annexure-F, passed by the 2nd respondent and the order dated 06.02.2013, Annexure-G, passed by the 1st respondent, determining the payment of gratuity in favour of the respondent workman.
According to the Corporation, respondent No.3/ workman joined the services in the petitioner Corporation on 28.05.1974 and retired from service on 31.07.2007 on
3 attaining the age of superannuation by serving the Corporation for 32 years. For the purpose of payment gratuity, the total service rendered by the 3rd respondent was calculated by the Corporation to be 30 years 8 months 25 days, after deducting break in service period of 1 year 11 months 8 days from the total service of 32 years 11 months 1 day.
The 3rd respondent was dismissed from service on 01.05.1996 on certain charges, which was subject matter before this Court in W.P.No. 31740/2000 c/w WP No.39796/2000. In the said petitions, 3rd respondent was directed to be reinstated into service with continuity of service and without backwages, by order dated 03.12.2003. The 3rd respondent was paid a sum of `29,925/- at the time of dismissal from service and on his reinstatement he was required to remit the said amount to the Corporation. Though a call letter was issued on 06.12.2000 calling upon the 3rd respondent to remit `29,925/-, he failed to
4 deposit the said sum. It is further contended that the 3rd respondent had availed loan from State Bank of Mysore by executing irrevocable letter of attorney and an amount of `21,467/- was outstanding as on 2007. Accordingly, 3rd respondent was paid a sum of `2,11,044/- towards gratuity from out of `2,90,195/-, by deducting `800/- towards festival advance, `21,467/- towards vehicle loan, `450/- towards GIS, `29,925/- towards gratuity already paid, `20,764/- towards interest on gratuity and `5,745/- towards income tax.
Aggrieved by the same, the 3rd respondent approached the 2nd respondent/Controlling authority, who, by order dated 26.10.2011 directed the petitioner Corporation to pay the differential gratuity amount of `74,859/-, which was affirmed by the 1st respondent/ Appellate Authority by order dated 06.02.2013. Hence, the petitioner Corporation has filed the present writ petition.
5 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
Smt.H.R.Renuka, learned counsel for the petitioner Corporation vehemently contended that the impugned orders passed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 entitling the respondent No.3/workman for difference of gratuity at `74,859/-, without looking into the deductions, is untenable and therefore, sought to quash the impugned orders by allowing the writ petition.
Per contra, Sri Jagadeeshachari, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 workman, sought to justify the impugned orders and sought to dismiss the writ petition and fairly submits that the authorities have not deducted the vehicle loan and the interest on gratuity.
Sri D.Ashwathappa, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 sought to justify the impugned orders.
6 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis, it is not in dispute that the 3rd respondent has joined the services of the Corporation on 28.05.1974 and was retired on 31.07.2007, on attaining the age of superannuation. It is also not in dispute that during the tenure of his service, he was dismissed on 01.05.1996 on certain charges and subsequently, by order of this Court, was reinstated on 03.12.2003, with continuity of service and without backwages. Inspite of the call letter dated 06.12.2000 issued by the Corporation, the 3rd respondent failed to repay the gratuity amount of `29,925/- paid to him at the time of dismissal. It is also not in dispute that the workman had availed loan from State Bank of Mysore and a sum of `21,467/- was outstanding as on the year 2007. Though the learned counsel for the Corporation submits that the limit for income tax is `3,50,000/- and therefore, income tax has to be deducted, same is disputed by the learned counsel for the workman and submits that gratuity amount is exempted from income tax.
7 10. In view of the admitted facts with regard to vehicle loan borrowed and the interest on gratuity amount payable by the workman and disputed fact with regard to income tax on gratuity amount, the matter requires to be re-adjudicated by the original authority.
In view of the aforesaid reasons, writ petition is allowed. The order dated 26.10.2011, Annexure-F passed by the 2nd respondent and the order dated 06.02.2013, Annexure-G, passed by the 1st respondent are quashed. The matter is remanded to the 2nd respondent for consideration, afresh.
The parties are at liberty to file additional documents, if any, and Controlling Authority/2nd respondent is directed to pass orders in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE
kcm