IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA. BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 03TH DAY OF OCTOBER'-Ea-.69, BEFORE E' ' ' THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAII " I WRIT PETITION NO. 58oS.C¢oEI2.0o'£: iL4i:sRf'r;,Cj BETWEEN BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORpORA_TION~I""' - . CENTRAL OFFICE K HROAD " ' SHANTI-IINAGAR BANGALOMW BY ITS CHIEF TRAFFIC MANAO1-_:R' " REP BYITS , : CHIEF LAW 3.QF:€I'(j,ER PE'I'I'1'IONER [By Smt 5 II ANDZ7; 1 DEPUTYILABQUR COMMISSIONER & _ _ APPELLATE= AUTHORITY UNDER TI-IE PA'I']\/IENTOF GRATUITY ACT . ., BAVNERCHAITA ROAD _ "B_AZ\TGALf)RE~~29 '" I THE'i_ASST. LABOUR COMMISSIONER & =CUNTROLLIN G AUTHORITY UNDER ~~ 'I"'I;~IE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT EKARMIKA BHAVAN BANNERGHATTA ROAD BANGALORE29 F 3 E KUPPEN S/O LATE EAGAPPA. ADULT W fig'/;' NO. K G 105, H B R COLONY II STAGE VENKATESHPURA NAGAWARA MAIN ROAB BANGALORE45 RESPONDENTS
(By Sri : JAGADEESH, MUNDARAGI, GA FOR RI (‘St 2)
(BY SR1. M C BASAVARAJ U, ADV FOR R3)
THIS PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO’
THE ORDER DT.22.3.2007 (ANNEXURE E) 1?As;SEDV’_BY_”«’riiE_
R2; AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING: ON. Foe ;
IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY THE:.C’QI}RT._MADE__
FOLLOWING: ‘ .
o a._i1,E R”
The Bangalore VA 7- —-II/l’etro.poIitaI1 . Transport
Corporation; by A thevvvorder dated 22~03–2007
Annei>tugre–“IE” Authority and the order
dated 1é;–Q[3~2to08’e VAr1r1exure-“G” of the Appellate
I V. tindeirflthe Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 [for
preferred this petition.
The core question for deeision–making is,
“Whether the Controlling Authority was
A justified in entertaining an application under
Rule 10 of the Payment of Gratuity (CentraI)
M
eggs;
Rules, 1972 filed by the 3″ respondent
without showing sufficient cause for the
delay in filing the application beyond,..VV$V&Q:’i~.V_
days of the occurrence of the canse’_{o*r«’..t;h§”Vl’
application?
The 31″ respondent was appointed’ it
Corporation as a conductor withtteffectpfrlorn’ t1–4′:–t1’9’6V9ry
and retired on 14-07-19t98.:.’on attaining age of
superannuation. vtpei<iTo'd.pof service, the 3rd
respondent, it is a period of 11
months included days of the absence
treated Vpaliowance, while active service
was 28?-yearstt 26 days. On the date of
r_etirerr1cnt, th'e«3Td_. respondent was drawing a basic pay
' and reckoning the number of years of
ti syeryicepbrienldered, the petitioner calculated gratuity
payable as Rs.2,03,061/– in tenns of the Gratuity
"ti Viiegjuiations of the Corporation as against Rs.1,42,-447/–
__?determined under the Act. '1' hat amount was received
3%
by the 3td respondent immediately on retirement during
the year 1998 without any demure.
3. The 3′-firesponderit, during the year
an application under Rule 10 before
Authority claiming of Rs.69,49E__3/.: as i
having served the Corporation 32.
admitting the receipt of gratuity by his’
ernployer–the petitioner. Th-e “respondent did neither
file an application ‘nor sufficient cause to
condone the..:delay§:”in_l V’ application claiming
balai1_ce–_of Controlling Authority, Without
noticingathe Vlfactu the cause of action for the
application Vlh-adV_____arisen in the year 1998 when the
‘ ;gratu,i_tycwa’s paid to the 3rd respondent, leading to filing
. appli’cation during 2006, under Rule 10, without
showilng sufficient cause for the delay, nevertheless
Adwvallowed the application by the order dated 22-03-2007
l;Annexure–“‘E”. That order was confirmed by the
M
‘Jr?
Appellate Authority in his order dated 12–03–2008
AnneXure–“G” without recording a finding on the
contention advanced in Paragraph 6 of the of
appeal that the application under Rule
the period of limitation and tha;t..n.o4suificierrtV »ca’t1$e \!i’,§1.’E’:l’_ it
shown to condone the inordinate olf.gvig:}a_t pg
4. An exa1ninationVlofp:’p”t.he it is»
evident that the V,qnestiorri..”a:=§”-»to the 3rd
respondent did cause to the
satisfaction, delay in filing the
application.Vl’1’1nderrRuie ~10 Since the cause of action for
the said,_a”pplicatio’n’ the petitioner’s determination
and the Ina~l<in_g'g'.over of the gratuity to the 3rd
igigrespovndterd". during the year 1998 on retirement
"rernaine.Vd–nnanswered. The order impugned does not
anlimated it a finding of the Controlling Authority
icondoning the delay in preferring the application. The
it
order suffers from an error apparent on the face of the
record.
5. The proviso to Rule l0 of the “it
mandatory for the Controlling Authority”to::condone
delay if the application is filed lbeyrinrl’ time
limit and thereafter adjudicatei’v-upon on’
merits.
6. In that View of the it to state that
the Controlli’n:g:’.Authority condoned the
inordinate preferring the application
under-Rule respondent, did not have the
jurisdiction _:to a’dju’dic’ate the claim on the merits. As a
Ac’e.fise.q1ience, Hthedvorder of the Appellate Authority
order of the Controlling Authority is
unsus tairiable.
” the result, the writ petition is allowed. The
of the Controlling Authority and that of the
Appellate Authority is quashed and the proceeding
remitted for consideration afresh by the Comrolling
Authority.
KS