IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNA'rA1<A;.'1*
BANGALORE %
DATED THIS THE 17"' DAY 0?
BEF()RE._._ A
THE HOWBLE M1uUsfr1(:1a;«Hm.;UvA;3I.:*,.§4égzse:£31: L
WRIT PETITION :$é<:..~; '2_._g ()1s'k%2§:ms%(_1!_,;'1«;'s11*rk%(,)
BETWEEN: &% %
Bangalcare. Metropolitan _
Transport CQ:1§(3;aiin; _ ~ '
Centrai Ofl_icé;}:jK;H.R.oa€i,""
'
By its Chiefifraffié By1a'miger,"'V' 3
Representtfiifi' byfis --C?:-icf-Law' ..PETITIONER
(F53;'3'?-iziifi;R:.i§éi§_a£1:a,'V_.{§ai§?,.§ %
ar;:.2=
A Commissioner
" ~ V a;_1c§.+Appe1Iate Autherity under
' V "i*!<ié~.1?"73L},«'i1m5s2t sf Gratuity Act,
' Rég§ir'3;_3-3, Bamzerghatta Road,
I;};fient,
____ éafijipgi on for preliminary hearing in
'B' Gr01f:p§'§rhis '.:i_a};,_1:h»:.=.§ Cans": made the foliowing:
V§ [~0RDER
I?_et:t10ner;--~B«Ps/ITC has sought far to 133123/Ea writ sf
V .,fo*:.quash tha orders at Annexure 'E' and 'G' dated
'A 28.2.08 passed by the 2" respondent and 1"
j résgaéindezzi respectively and far such other orders.
2. By virtue of the impugned arder at Annexures ‘E’, the
2″ responcieazt, under the Payment afGrat1:ity Aci. cf 1972, has
%W’
4. Heard the learned Ccmzzscl for the respcctéx.«’¢_ parties.
5. it is the argument of the learned the
petitioner that the period of ima’uth<3ri$ed. 3 –«tii£3.__
extent of 2 years I I mtmths anc§,_V20 idays Ai§3"add£:'£i9n:A:f£§ fhfi.i".g Q
the 3rd respondent was on fr): a' gfléars
and as such petitiorrrar is of service
and unless it is .fe:.:§zi worked for 240
days d1Iri'1.1g:: the 'riuring the period of
absenc£'"§§r.V of service he is net
e:}'tit]éd' "(if gratuity for the said: perioé.
Réiyifig the dacisien of the Division Bench of
V" C6321 the §é.ii'rrzcd Government Pleader referring to Section
3 ,f_h%:T'Pfiyn1e;3t of Gxamity Act has submzéflzed that there has
"—-to flsfrecéfic finding by ihe' employer with respect to the
'A s coIifim1:ity cf service or break £32 S€f'€fiC6 and merely because the
iczrtified standing orders previded fer treating unaizthurised
absence ifany to effect" a break in unless the empkmyer
W
by foiiewing, tbs principles of natural justice hagpassed an
cmisr 0f break in service and aiso served th<:¢jV:s:§.fn§"..Qn the
concerned employae, it is not open to the
that there was an automatic ceéisatiértz tot? scrvitc'.'c._or'aV«'br£:ak in
service. Accordingly, Sttbttlitttgti' .. the Vt \ rfiit:
aI3Dlies tn the case on H A V' t
7. As per the service
ofthe petit4i;§i:¢r-C<}r;¥:i:r"é:tjr}:j£ atga%Mt$t;;n.§§g¢t§r 011 30.19.1972. He
attained 32.5.2005. As per the
st1i7:r1is:$:.i:<j.yt§' fit()3t'z:!»« of service of the 3"'
r駧d11.de1:t Vis:'.3«'-3: months and 1} days and there is a
Vb_rcaI-; i'1: ficnsiizetct; 'gzears I I months mid 20 days out ef the
V":t—-.":it{!t£i§ pagiaé yaars 27 menths and 1 clay: The gratuity
'V V ttftttze 3" respondent has to be calcutated both under the
A Pa,§,?':22sé§1§tAt0f Gratuity Act anti also under the KSRTC Gratuity
A. Régiflations.
W/.
advance and loan advanced by KSRTC Credit C<'::»-0P5%t.ix:e
Society and Bharath C0-nperative Society, the deducticans are
shown to the extent of Rs.61,841,?~_ fruzn thegfafiti£j§?"'a,tfiQuenVt'«V'
and the petitioner-Cnrperation is ent'i't§eé"'.'_'f'ESi4 reetvjtefigzg
ameunt, which is pem3issib§e,V'sii:ee thiS~.fat:t 'wag vbrcgxght tn:-. V *
the notice 0f the authorities befofe gaassifig. "tattle: and the
difference if gratuity azinmnt fiiade aitefdedzieting the
dues towards the Manageegellt. fig' if ac
3/i/»,V4,x..«,i '- 3"/f'=;4_<ae.».A:"3? (_;_?£¢~L*'–Vf,,,)'€_';' .. *
10. 1711’e”‘Eeai£’ne€f¥ 1;C’:§_L1_1fi:;eI f(“>r.ft§2e _petitioner has Siibffiifiifid
that the”entiit;et5t;i22§:{§§;nt i*:es–..t§eei2″*de;j%c1sited before the appellate
aathotitjsz. ” “H0i$fe§%¢.;; tigée’-eefizgiuhnt in deposit to the extent ef
Rs;.6L84 .V ;’e€_ufnveé« the petiii0r;er–Corporation and
reinqégixiing; a2:1<itm.tbe disbursseci to the 3": respondent.
H " peiitien is disposed of. Sdl-3 Judge