3. Rficttegowda,
S/0 late Rangappa,
Admit, Shambhanahaliy,
Kurankote Post,
C.N.Durga Hebli,
Korategcre Taiuk, V
Tumkur Disaict. V 'ES , , .. L
(By Srilagadish Mtmdaragi, «V
This Wfit Pefifiofi 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India Vp;a'3.<_iVng"_t<}:q1a;-aash -order dt.25.6.07
by the R2, in cm:3*lQ.AI.:gCB3;?§?GAf(3R;'i4/'$35406 Vida Ann-C.
This preliminary heating in
'B' Groupfizisi maiiefiie following:
__§ T'h§s the Managemantn assailing the order
3:16'-.AppeIlatc Authority under the Payment af
wail as by file Controiling Authority at
Annéyairég 'Ii' and 'C? rsspectivcfy. The Controlling Authority
:5; {irdcr "dated 25.5.07 has directed the petitioner-Corporatien
V. tafrnake payment of gratuity of Rs.§,27,} 11:1 to the workman
. who is respondent No.3 hcrein, within 30 days of the {mist
./
>8″
failing which, {(3 pay the said amount with 12% interest the
delay Being aggrieved by the same, an
preferred by the petiti0ner–BMTC before tiger
Authority. The Appellate Authorityfifi’ turn V’
the order of the Ctmtrolling Authority;
Hence, this petritien.
2. Heard.
3; “i’t”is fire was superannuated on
3l.7.9Sv.u”, ‘They of payment of gratuity was
implexnentecl” 28.11.95, as such the ratio laid
V. –dev&e;in5»-.R-Krishne Vs. Management of KSRTC reported
not applicable to the case on hand and
desjeite «jltllfi Controlling Authmity and the Appellate
l H H ‘T “under the)Payment of Gratuity Act have passed the
erréiineous «girders. Learned Gcwemrnent Advecate appmring tier
T respondentis l and 2 has submitted that an epporttmity should
be given to both the parties to have their say in the matter.
wf
4- In View ofthc submission made, petition is aiiawcd
and the impugned order passed by the Appellate
Annexurc ‘E’ is quashed. The matter is {:0 -.
Appellate Authority fer dispesai of the
law after hearing both sides.
Learned .Akijucgizgté’-Visjpfii-rectcd to file his
memo of appear:-met; meithiji ‘f’cajr Vioday.
Sci,”
‘judge
Bkp.