IN THE I~IIGI"I COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE .18" DAY OF NOVEMBER
PRES ENT
THE HONBLE MR. P.D. DINAKARAN. C.IIISFIj;iUSTIOS I I
AND ' _
THE HONBLE MR.JUSTIOéi'
WRIT APPEAL /2I)'O.. U,/ST, distort THE"
KARNATM(A HTGH COURT ACT FRAYiNG._TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER PASSED {N WRIT EETITION N'O.1~3876/2008
DATED 9.3.2009. " --
THIS WRIT APPEAL ~7.I«;fo'R PRELIMINMRY
HEARING THIS .DAY;_; J.;, DELIVERED THE
roirowiwog'; g .A
" " NAT
the Bangalore Metropolitan
'I'ransport--«Corooratioi1..."-~'i[BMTC] being aggrieved by the
;>_._:[:)aSSedA'V"1n»----------Writ Petition N0.13876/2008 dated
the learned Single Judge has disposed
dofutihe petition deciining to interfere with the order
passedi. by the 13* respondent dated 15.7.2008
eonfirming the order passed by the 2″”-1 respondent
H dated 22.11.2007 regarding the claim. of the workman
for gratuity.
\-?’°
2. The 3″‘ respondent herein ««M.K.Rangappa
was in the employment of the appellant –BMT{3’
retired from service on 31.8.2004.
application under Section 4 of th’e-Payrrieritj”of4_Gratuity ‘
Act, 1972 before the Controlling«VAiithority.,for,
of Gratuity, averring thatlthi:::§~~..§/iyfatnity
to him had not been zleterrninedi’inV”accordar1ce”iwith law.
Since there was an
application delay. The 2115
respondent’ and allowed the
applic!a’tion.l.filled’:by” bfééplondent herein by order
same was confirmed by the
Appdlatel’!’A1ii1′}Ot=.ity’._ Q13: respondent by order dated
Beingwiaggrieved by the same, BMTC
13878/2008 contending that the order
passed.by_the 151 respondent confirming the order of the
2″? rlespondent. regarding entitlement of balance of
-gr-a.tli;1ity amount of Rs.55,908/– to the 8″ respondent
.,._vs;as illegal and liable to be set aside.
\.3
4
3. The iearned Single Judge, after hearing the
iearned Counsel appearing for the petitioner -appe11ant
herein. the iearned Government. Advocate appearing for
respondent Nos.I. and 2 and the 1earned..j”eoLi1i–sel
appearing for the 3″‘ respondent, by
9.3.2009, held that the Service..Regi4ster’Hdioes1no”t.’pVroV_eu it
as to how many days the workfnan has hworeked
such circumstances, in the.._Va’e._sencVe .__of any evidence to”
prove the same, the oniy inrferenCe”-~that eou1d5he drawn
is that the for 240 days
contij;inon’si_§f’.gviniiiad andvddentitied for gratuity. The
{earned $1-ngle heid that the fact that the
applicant ‘woriéedévas conductor from 4.12.1967 to
‘d it is notwinddispute and if there was any break
vhVt1~’ie.~saIr1e ought to have been proved by the
rnanagvement. The same has not been proved and
ewherefore the order passed by respondent Nos}. and 2
it j-“dstitied. However, the {earned Single Judge made
” ~-~~observations regarding the conduct of the 21″-1
respondent in disbursing the amount without waiting
\’\y»3
5
for the result of the appeal filed before the ls’-
respondent and accordingly disposed of the.___ writ
petition. Being aggrieved by the said order,
appeal is filed by the BMTC.
4. We have heard learned». =co–i1’I1sgel_
appearing for the appellanl:”‘*i.and. ‘VAGAVV
appearing for respondent N05. 1
5. ‘lT’nef.Vg»plearned -~eo’v.nse’lv..__ai;5pearing for the
appellant thtelllappellant had calculated
and =”3F<i respondent in a sum of
Rs.2«,27,952/:v– and h-ehxitas not entitled to Rs.2,83,860/-
agniali' 1%éep"endentVV"'Ntovs.l and 2 were not justified in
of gratuity amount of Rs.55,908/–
and the 'learned Single Judge ought to have allowed the
A." 4" — –. at Writ petition.
\..5>
6
6. The learned AGA argued in support of the
order passed by the learned Single Judge-.»pand
respondent Nos} and 2.
7. We have given careful eo’1islide’rati’onVVto
contention of the 1earned;c_ounse1_’for thve-“«l.p:a’rties’;
scrutinised the material on record,
8. The material on clearly show
that respondent put in 38
he was drawing basic
salaryvllof date of superannuation
ar1d_-BMTC” v_ifas..vl”ecl}”‘s-iilred to pay Rs.2,83,860/«, but it
f>a1’d”._onlylv”lRs;,2,27,952/w contending that the
” worked for one year 10 months 5
days a’s}d,in order to claim gratuity. the workman must
havellwoirked at least 240 days continuously during the
it 1967 and 1972 and that having not proved by
” workman, he is not entitled for payment. of gratuity.
It is clear from the scrutiny of the material on record
._\’j}
O%ER
Writ appeal is dismissed.
%
Index: Yes/N0 ‘ _ A
Web
b§<v* V'