%
1
" . 5*'
N THE Hm: count or KARRATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED ms THE 2"" DAY or FEBRUARY, zoos
BEFORE
THE HON'BtE MR.JUSTlCE SUBHASH 3.»): '
BANGALORE METRQPOUTAN V A %
CENTRAL OFFECE. K.H ROAD. 2:! f
BY rrs CHIEF TRAFFIC MANAGERREP av :75 ._ 'T ¢
CHEF LAWOFFICER.
' ..PETETiONER
(By Smt : H R RENi3§<A';'Aii§\f;)" 1
ms C(:MM.tS$.:{}§:ER %
AN9 THE Af'PE1LLATE"--AUT!+i{}RtT§' %
UNDER THE 'F*A\'fvi§.NT OF GRATUITY? ACT.
smGAz.oRs-,k :e5s:e;w_ A
KARMEEKAsHAwA§:V% .
ammeasmrra mm
BANGALORE-.566'07€:'.? j %
THE ;sssA:sTAmr Ezdmmssnowaa ms
CQN"!.'RQLL!NG Amlmlw
% "£}1vi$-.ION'~ 4.% KARMEEKA BHAWAN
' ROAD.
._ 076.
L;AF§§§GHUi¥1f§§ts£I}§AhlA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
--_s: LA'!'E'1~LA§(SHMlKANTHA SYENGAR . %
r»s<a.e3z2;'MuDAm=PA moss. DODBAMAVALU
i3A_NGALGRE- seocm.
RESPONDENTS
(By sm. JAGADEESH MUNDARGI. GA. FOR R1 3. 2.
SRI. LSHEKAR. ADV. FOR R3)
Iifiii
-3-
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND –
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. PRAYING TO: QUASH THE
ORDER OF THE SECOND RESPONDNET DT. 18.10200? VIBE
ANNEXURE-‘B’ AM”) QUASH THE ORDER OF THE FIRST
RESPONDENT DT. 20.10.2008 VIBE ANNEXURE-‘D’ AND ET(}…._
mas PETITION comm on son PRLY. 4; *af[ _
GROUP. THIS BAY. THE COURT MADE THE FOI.LG\NII’–3G’2 V ‘*-
This Writ Petition is directed against
respondent by order dated 20.10.2303 A.:’1’t:o.:_uc:1v§:re~_I?3.
2. Respondent sought fof of gratuity amount
on the ground that. ne§.ad% and he is
onfifiod for Rs.1 }’§-jéoaid and claimed an
armunt of was opposed on the
ground I of 10 months 25 days.
however. one A<3:w__n'troi|it¥§_. tho evidence. directed
the Corpofgsfloo of amount of Rs.63.7i49i~.
=wa3¢aiIodVV'"ié§"ouest§on before the Authority.
— :j.Authority. the Corporation contended that.
: wais as a badili conductor and he worked as badii
. _6._8.”I’98g0 _to 2.8.1981 and _during this period. he had
_ ‘ days and aiso ciaimed that more is excess payment
It is aiso contondw that. though Rs.1.15.G65i- 3 said.
It I — “Controlling Authority has mentioned Rs.1.05.211I-» only. The
15.
.1.» ~
. passed by 2′” respondent produced xoiro 1*
QLV
fimannertznjust enrichment. Learned counset also relied
ffiiounnjudgment reponm in 2005(2) LLJ P1040 in the
% A’ ‘eotseonérnmr. on. AND NATURAL ens COMMISSION LTD.
Ann tino’f£HR –vs- V.U_.WARR!ER and submioaemat, in case of
_ nneuttiorized occupation of the quarters beyond the period towards the
feeovery of penalty amount was deducted from me gratuity.
Apwilate Authonty though referred to the contentions. but without”
advertinn to the said contentions. rejected the appeal.
3. The contention of the Ieamedoouneel for the netifloneif ._
during the badii period. untess the workman compietes 2443: ‘
not entitled for gratuity. it is aiso contended_.that._ 4the_t’eV ” ” V
Rs.1.15.035I-. whereas, the Controtling ‘togn
Rs.1 135.21 11- The break in service”tVius’-else”
submitted that. in case of exoese entttted to
wifithoid me said amount. In for the
petitioner reiied on the iu_dgment..!a:t)ottetiV P 763 (Deihi
High Court) in the sin rsmecoepom non: or= mom
LIMITED —vs- eeomt nttsm nttecomusstomen AND
ANOTHER. coneidenng the excess payment.
has observed1Vi:*aat..’tt1e for the payment of gratuity to
what he is en_title<'1t"to%. if theaetiottanyt excess payment. the management
jis" 'enfifiezfto "":"he….workman cannot make a claim of any
atnountin itotwfinat he is omitted and Court cannot interpret in e
I Veareess ea31merlt'b3r'tlie Corporation, in my opinion. the workman wilt not
fevrfien amount more than what he is due. If the excess
Here inadvertently or by rnimke has been paid. that will not
it a gift or reward to the workman. At the same time. workman
u Aeennat be denied of his legitimate claim and furlher Court cannot be
it-uparly to make unjust enrichment of the respondent. in these
4. Sri Shekhar. learned counsel appwring fer the respondent
contended tnet. no such contention was raised befere the Controlling
Authority. Even the alleged excess payment is not evidenced
material nor details are furnished. The respondent had
even to know what is the excess payment. Appeal
satisfy the details of the excess payment and
was paid. He also submitted that, the
evidenced by an order in terms of’ of it
Gratuity Act and further submitte<$V.fi1at,..itie:..(;c-nti*9lling as well
as the Appellate Authority has passed
the order in censonenoe of Gratuity Act,
however. he in amount paid as
Rm .0521 1/–instaa e..1 I A [Le Al? .
5. The’vCorporefienfi’:h:a:e that. there is excess payment
of Rs.43.093!-.A inltnisv .e:e;;atrai%. ground is raised before the
fitppeliate It cleiaar from the order that. the reepondent
knew what is the excees payment and
furttier.VV_Vdeteils-le’re’V_ irnentioned in the appeal grounds. if there is
§§Aa1I
13.2.2009 Writ Petition No.1?129i20Q.8{.&.:.;K)_V
/
NE
This matter was disposed of on 22.2009 and érecfian a_–ié6′ ” ” C” . ‘
issued to the parties to appear before the Appe!!ate:’»At.#;orit} 6rs.
17.2.2aa9. ‘ ” %
Since the certified copy is not issued. the dateK6fVa’ppearar§:e
the parties is modified as. 27.2.2009. % ‘V X
*AP!–