IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA. BANOALORE
DATED THIS THE 23TH DAY OF sEPTE1s5EER§S__A2!)§io%
THE HON’BLE MR.JUsTIcE
WRIT PETITION NO;2O359″ I
BETWEEN V T I I
P R KRISHNA RAO, A
S/O. P V RAMAOHANDRA
AGE 67 YEARS . jy ‘
R/AT NO 33? .. ‘ ”
NIMIBBAMBA LA;¥OUT’—–
KUVTEMPUNAGARA, … PETITEONER
(BY Sm. ADV — ABSENT)
!W”9
I i*TTI{E’_REGIUI\TTAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER
‘ & APPELLATE AUTHORITY
“UNDER PAYMENT OF’ GRATUIRY ACT
_ » SADANA, YESHWANTAPUR
.. ” INDUSTRIAL SUBURB 11 STAGE
OOROUNTERALYA, TUMKUR ROAD
BANGALORE — 22.
THE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER
PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT AND THE
ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER
(CENTRAL) SHRAMA SADANA
YESAWANTAPURA INDUSTRIAL SUBURB
EI STAGE, GORGUNTEPALYA, TUMKUR ROAD
Mx
BANGALORE — 22.
3 THE KARNATAKA BANK LIMITED
REPBY ITS CHAIRMAN
HEAD OFFICE, KODIOALBAIL ‘ . ~ V.
MANGALORE –~ 3. RESPO-NDENTSD’ ‘ .
THIS PETITION FILED UNDER 22%
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO. S’E’I’I’Ii’-JG Q
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19,.45.(¥’9e ..PAS.SED” IN
NO.84/2003-82 PASSED BY TI-IE “R1 ANNFJV
ORDER DATED 27/6/03 PASSED IN APPLICATIQ_N I_SSUED>
BY THE R2 ANN–G AND “ALLOW THE
PETITIONER FOR PAYMENT OF _GRATu1r2′; AND Ere.
THIS PE’Fi’I’E01v\l””-(..3i01\/i1tNC5_€i.N’=FQRPRL.HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE~i’OLLOwf1NO:
I*§.””D””I§4 R
‘The petitioDner’c];aitr1s to have joined the services of
the ..responde11t’v”– on 4.10.1967 as a Clerk and on
– as &a’rrDfficer and served untili 13.04.1992
when’}..fcer:rair1ated from service for acts of proved
naisc.-Oridiiicts. The last drawn wage according to the
.. petitioner was Rs.7,348/-. Alieging that deep? tea lapse
“;D’of'”’11 years after termination, the Bank had not paid
D gratuity, filed an application invoking sub–section [1] of
Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 for
M
issue as to whether the petitioner falls within the
definition of the term ’employee’ under Sectioni”2.(e) .of
the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and
same in the negative, holding that Of
the term ’employee’ means hi
apprentice employed on Wages .,
per mensurn while the in excess
of Rs.2,500/– rejected the
application Annexure–“G”.
Aggrieved. order, the petitioner preferred
Gratuity “E434/2003 before the Appellate
.lW’h.ichA.vtoo when rejected by order dated
‘ “l9.G,5;2vO.§9–.Annexure–“J”, has presented this petition.
2~.l-Iaving perused the memorandum of writ
is ,petition and examined the orders impugned,
lduridoubtedly, the petitioner was drawing a salary which
included basic pay of Rs.4,140/– and DA. of Rs.3,208/–
as on 13.04.1992 while the Act is applicable to such of
M