High Court Karnataka High Court

The Canara Sales Corporation Pvt … vs Mr Neelappa Naik on 6 January, 2009

Karnataka High Court
The Canara Sales Corporation Pvt … vs Mr Neelappa Naik on 6 January, 2009
Author: Subhash B.Adi
IN TKE HIGH C0133?!' OF KAR.l'4IATAK.A AT ISAHGALORE

8

ANE):

1

DATED THES THE 6"' DAY OF JANUARY, 2009
BBFQRE
THE HON'BLE§ }VfR.JUS'I'ICE SUBHASH BAIZBI
WRIT PETITION NO.14541li._20{)7fL~PGr)

BE:

THE CANARA SALES CORPORATION PV1' LTD -1' % =   
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER   _ 
PROVISIONS 01? THE COMPANEES A.::'r,'--1955, . ' "
HAVING rrs REGD oppzcg A*m:pD1A'L:3AzL *_  
MANGALORE ~ 575 003,  .  

REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND  
MANAGING DIREC3'I'0R'"  . ' % 
MR Liv. KUDVA, AGED66 YE--AR.;_S,;
3/0. LATE v.s. KUDVA,   
R/CL MANf3AL€;}F2_E,  

 ;   'JPETITIDNER

(By Sri i:V 'A_V;:E$i¢i*;§2{z§. "Ié".S_I§I §{RiSHNA, ADVS.)

MR NEELAPPA ixmléf A   
SIG. 1MAHAL-INGAV ;;~zA;1c "
MAJ;OR,;BALUQI_ HOUSE

 *  :I VILLEG-E'

'*'r§1I§:r.;A1;m;):«.posT

 ' P¥}T'?U'§!2T.fiLL§:K--_D.K.

'1'§iBv%ASs:'u'5'rA§9?:4 LABOUR
CO-MMI§S:SIQ.NER AND CON'I'R()LLiNG
AU'I"'HORI'I'Y UMBER THE PAYMENT or:

  GRATUITY ACT,
. MAEGALORE -2

 2T}§E Ii}EPUTY LABOUR CZOMMISSKJNER

AND THE APPELLATE AUTHORYTY

 "UNDER THE PAYMENT oz?

GRATUETY ACT, 1972
HASSAN DlViSi()N

HASSAN ,  RELSPONIIIENTS

(By Sri: JAGADEESH MUNDARGI, HCGP, FOR R2 firs R3)

 



 he is%'.:.:§iat1ed'%£5:>._.p;§g.*:ficn: of gatuity of Rs.15,6(}O/-. Initially
  served on the petifioner, he did not appear

' _ empaxtc before the Controlling Authority.
 pfifitiflflfll' appeared and filed objection statement

   _  ir."%f:e'r::££ic:z denying the payment and also the service mndarcd by
  Vrespondent: worlman and 3139 stated that the respondent

Qzvoriman has caused loss to the petitioner: Company and in this

-2-

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND :22? 01? THE C:ONS’I’I’I’U’I’I(i)N OF mam, PRAYENG ‘;*0; SET
ASIDE ‘l”H{‘} IMPUGNJ-:3!) ORDER OF THE} 33-431) RE.SPUNL)1:}N’l’
m*.5.?,2oo7 umomrm THE 01259552 or Tim. zzma
RESPONDENT m*.21.3.2006 PASSED VIBE ANNEXURES 3 ‘.3; A
RESPECFIVELY.

THIS PE’§’I’I’I()N (ZICEMING on FOR PRLY. }1E.*g}i:Ir~;{}:§7?B’ ”
GROUP THIS mar. THE coum’ MADE THE FOLL(_)3.¥{N{3;: ._ ”

QEER

i3ctit:io11c;r has called in qucsfi.gix…thc “61~L1ficr.paé..é.逧 b}z.. the
2nd respondent dated 23.3.2095 a;§pez§1Mp-ggsze the

1*’ respondent on 53.2007 ‘B’.

2. Respondenfi, a éecfion 7 of the
Payment of made there under,
iniezralia as a Manager in tha
pcfifioncr and has worked till
16.11.20!) 1, n. th_.éi §cn.d.e:red his resignation and
fig,-flf.;er _:i;.”*;§’t. fvorkcd for 14 ycam 7 months. He

basic pay was Rs.2080/- and aileged that,

regard there is criminal case {sending bcfert: the JMFC Court

e”3:.–

Contzmlling Authority ccsnsidexing the material pmduceé before

it, heki that, the respondent workman has established that__I1e

had worked for 14 years ‘? months and he had A’

resigation on 16.11.2001 and also obsezvcd that, *

is entitled for payment of gratuity. In so fa;1i..a$_ the V4

the respondent has caused financial :’§::ss5;”‘ [$5 the if

CGIIIPEIIY and the matter is pendingV_be_t’oze theV@.IMF the %

Controlling Authority obsexved that, fdffeituxe
ef gratuity amount is passVe:ifl”a_3q.cA’.V_ *-.ti1z.1A”t~tthe msponcient
workman is entitled fer paymezzt iof 25,800/– in

all.

tw-

3. Being {i11i.Es.-1;, the petitioner filed an
appeal befo:e._flie under Section 7(7) of the
Payment of Appeilate Authority on
I’CCO;1Sid§1’g§£éQ#3 gf matter found that the material

‘«IeS.pondent workxnan establishes that he had

~gvorked– to l6.11.%{}1 and far this period he is
fer paggneiit of gratuity.

‘T counsel apfieaxing for the petitioner submitted

‘ authorities have not considered the ease of the

. He also submitted that, the respondent has not

..V”tt.4″A”et§txa’b1ished that, he has Worked for :4 years 7 months, and he

is not entitled fez’ payment of gratuity.

_ ‘V . ‘ ~

5. The Controlling Authority has relied on the document
produced by the respondent werlrrnan and has found that,
respondent has worktzd for 14 years 7 months and has
found that the Last basic pay was Rs.2080/ — and further V
no orcier of forfeiture passed by the Management. .
there is no materiafi as to why’ the mspongicnfiéis 1_-abf
the gratuity I « « ‘ 4’ V

5. In the light of the Inate1’iaI»§}fG{i’ucc€i” by $1;é»v;fé§;§bndc§1t

WOT1{}33a11, I find that the any
error. in vigzw of t.b.c . i with the
orders impug¥I1ed.::’ :: .»- L V

Accordmr &f:V–Vx’i}.$ ‘am is dismissed.

S:-.5. Jagaaegsn High Court Government
Pleadcr, is éf Appearance in four weeks.

Sd/-3
Iudg3