What did the High Court hold?

The High Court found the delay of over ten years to be unsatisfactory and not sufficiently explained. The Appellate Authority's decision to condone the delay was deemed unjustified.

A retired employee claimed a difference in gratuity after nearly 10 years. The Controlling Authority dismissed the claim due to delay, but the Appellate Authority condoned the delay and remanded the matter.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the gratuity claim application was sufficiently explained and whether the Appellate Authority was justified in condoning the delay.

Karnataka State Road vs The Deputy Labour Commissisoner | Karnataka High Court 2016

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH, 2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S ABDUL NAZEER

WRIT PETITION NO.50783 OF 2013 (L-KSRTC)

Between:

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Bangalore Central Division Bangalore – 560 027 By its Divisional Controller Represented by its Chief Law Officer.

... Petitioner (By Smt.H.R.Renuka, Adv.)

And:

The Deputy Labour Commissioner

And the Appellate Authority

Under the Payment of Gratuity Act

Region I, Karmeeka Bhawan

Bannerghatta Road

Bangalore – 560 029.

The Assistant Labour Commissioner

And Controlling Authority

Under the Payment of Gratuity Act

Division 2, Bannerghatta Road

Karmeeka Bhavana

Bangalore – 560 029.

M.Krishnappa S/o. Late Venkatappa Adult R/o. Kothanur Village & Post

Hosakote Taluk

Bangalore Rural District.

... Respondents

(By Sri.T.S.Mahanthesh, AGA for R1 & R2, R3 served – unrepresented)

This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order dated 18.4.2013 vide Annexure-D and etc.

This writ petition coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ group this day, the Court made the following:

O R D E R

The third respondent had been working in the establishment of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bengaluru Central Division, Bengaluru, as a conductor. He retired from the service on 30.6.1999 on attaining the age of superannuation. The third respondent was paid a sum of `1,69,680/- towards gratuity consequent

3 on his retirement by deducting a sum of `4,760/- towards income tax and `.200/- towards pass. The third respondent filed an application claiming difference of gratuity after expiry of nearly 10 years from the date of his retirement.

He has filed an application seeking condonation of delay along with his claim statement. The Corporation opposed the application. On consideration of the rival contentions of the parties, the Controlling Authority – second respondent herein by his order at Annexure-C dated 29.6.2010, dismissed the claim petition on the ground of delay and latches. The third respondent filed an appeal before the first respondent challenging the said order. The first respondent by his order at Annexure-D dated 18.4.2013 allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Controlling Authority, condoned the delay in filing the application seeking difference in gratuity and remanded the matter to the second respondent for fresh disposal in

4 accordance with law. The Corporation has challenged the said order of the Appellate Authority in this writ petition.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Though the third respondent is served, he has remained unrepresented.

It is evident from the materials on record that there was a delay of more than ten years in making an application seeking difference of gratuity. The only reason assigned by the petitioner is that after his retirement he was approaching the higher authorities for payment of difference of gratuity. However, the authorities have not taken any action for disposing of the application. The inordinate delay of ten years in preferring the application is not at all satisfactory. In my opinion, the explanation offered does not construe sufficient cause for condonation

5 of delay. The First Appellate Authority has allowed the application on the ground that dismissal of the application seeking difference of gratuity will cause financial hardship to the third respondent.

Having perused the entire materials on record, I am of the view that the third respondent has not made out a case for condonation of delay. The Appellate Authority, therefore, was not justified in setting aside the well reasoned order of the Controlling Authority.

In the result, writ petition succeeds and it is accordingly allowed. The order of the Appellate Authority at Annexure-D dated 18.4.2013 is hereby quashed. No costs.

Sd/- JUDGE

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD vs. THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSISONER

What did the High Court hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments