W'.P.1/413712009
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA. BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 215" DAY OF AIIGUST. 2009
BEFORE
THE I-ION'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.G. RAMESH j
WRIT PETITION No.14137 OF 2009 (L-IISRTC-5} T.
m
_ 1 KARNATAKA STATE ROAD
CORPORATION, _ ._
CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H.RQAD,
SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE
REP. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER.
2 THE DIVISIONAL €...Ci?J'N'A1'ROI.j,E.vv1'E.:3"R.t
KSRTC,
MANGALORE DNISiO.N; V. _
aorIf FETITIONERS.
(By S:-£:.K.'s'. FOR SR1. B L SANJEEV, ADV}
AND:
1 ~ NARAYAN_A C-OWDA
" AGED AEOUT 50 YEARS.
" ~ _ R./OGANDEDY NEAR RICE MILL
i'.{AI.)1L?\E£§Aj7U POST B.C.ROAD,
'--..'BAN.'IWAL TALUK {D.K.)
2 ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSONER
AND CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER
PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT,
EMANCALORE DIVISION, MANOALORE [D.K.)
A 3 THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMSISONIER
AN D APPELLATE AUTHORITY.
W.P.1413'/12009
2
UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY
ACT, IIASSAN REGION,
HASSAN. RESPONDENTS.
[By Sri: JAGDEESH MUNDARGI. AGA FOR R2 & R3,
SR1. RAMESH UPADHYAYA, ADV. FOR R1} ‘ 0’
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
QUASH THE ORDER DT. 30.9.2008 PASSED
ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND_.CONTROLLING”
‘AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF :3RA’I’UfI’)f’Y’ .AcT-,_ ‘
MANGALORE DIVISION, MANGALORE [RI£’SPONADENT’vNO,,2)p’
(ANNEX–B} AND THE ORDER DE-241._2.’20o9. I>AssEI)–~.,BY.
THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMM_1SSIONEE?_ ANpfl.A.PI=ELLA*1*E
AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT ‘OF AGRATU_I’TY.. ACT, = ‘
HASSAN REGION, HAssAN (RESPONDE§N’T_ N053).fl{ANNEX~
THIS WP, COMING ON 301R; I$RELI1\;I.INARY HEARING
IN ‘E’ GROUP, THIS DAY, f”I’I~IE.-=._Cj’OIJR_I’ MADE THE
FOLLOWING} = 5;” .72,
_ This petittdn the KSRTC is directed against
I V. dated E4’¥’02–2009 [AnneXure–C) passed by the
under the Payment of Gratuity Act,
10′?’«2. impugned Order, the Appellate Authority
J’has_ d.iI’eeted the petitioner-employer to pay a sum of
‘Rs;–1–.’3,4»48/– to the 1st respondent towards the gratuity
~’a;InOunt due to him. He was working as a driver with
W.P.14l137[2009
3
the KSRTC. The sole contention urged by the learned
counsel for the petitioner is that the Appellate Authority
ought to have dismissed the claim petition as theI*erwras
a delay of 10 years in filing the claim petition _
Controlling Authority. It is relevant ‘w
Appeilate Authority has not awarded,-any uintlerest
delayed period. On merits;-..learnedx eounlsej;v..for..l3the
petitioner was not able as how the
computation of the Va1r;o1iri.t ?dt.1e””at.:lp”Rs.15,448/– is
erroneous. In my_ opi1iio’1i,[“éas’ the iiiiptigned order has
not rezsnltlediflin jiistice, no interference in
R ag;*.a*,=,*u-
exercise’of£séit’j.n’r’i_sdiet.ioii under Articies 226 & 227 of
the C,onsti.t1’itioVn’oi’ Indiavis warranted.
‘ ..VPetitionl”dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE