SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Kar) 1382

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
C.M. Poonacha, J.
AM Rajashekaraiah - Petitioner
Versus
The Secretary Department of Labour and others - Respondents
Writ Petition No.2925 of 2022 (L-PG)
Decided On : 04-01-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Sri MC Basavaraju, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Sri G M Chandrashekar, AGA., Sri Kantharaja V, Advocate.

Headnote:(A) Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - Sections 2(b), 7(3), 7(3A) - Writ petition seeking quashing of appellate authority's orders and for the release of gratuity amount - The petitioner served for 32 years but did not receive due gratuity on retirement - Controlling Authority awarded gratuity amount; however, this was contested based on technical grounds by the employer - The court emphasized that statutory entitlements must be honored and that delay tactics cannot impede payment. (Paras 11, 15, 17, 18)

(B) Remand orders - The court can intervene where technical objections to parties impede rightful claims of employee against employer. (Paras 10, 16)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, after 32 years of service as a teacher, sought gratuity from the management which was delayed. A controlling authority ordered payment, but the college management contested on technical grounds regarding party representation in the proceedings.

Findings of Court:
The court found that delaying tactics by the management were unjustified and warranted rectification through the Writ Petition. The respondent was ordered to pay the gratuity with interest promptly.

Issues: The main questions addressed were the validity of technical objections regarding party representation in adjudications and the need for prompt payment of statutory dues upon retirement.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that delays in payment of gratuity must not be tolerated, reasserting the obligation of the employer to honor statutory entitlements without undue obstruction.

Result: Writ Petition allowed; orders of the appellate authority set aside and gratuity to be paid with interest.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's employment history and grievances (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. respondent’s objections to the writ petition (Para 4 , 5)
3. arguments on entitlement to gratuity (Para 6 , 7)
4. court’s inquiry into reliefs sought (Para 8 , 9)
5. court analysis of gratuity computations (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
6. court's rejection of technical objections (Para 13 , 14)
7. statutory obligations under the gratuity act (Para 15 , 16 , 17)
8. final order and relief to the petitioner (Para 18 , 19)

ORDER :

C.M. Poonacha, J.

The above Writ Petition is filed seeking for the following reliefs:

    "i) Issue a writ in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order passed on the application (I.A.No.1/2021) in appeal bearing No.SAKAAA/BAN-1/PGA(A)/CR-20/2020-21 dated 23/12/2021 passed by the second respondent vide Annexure L to this writ petition and the impugned order passed on the appeal bearing No.SAKAAA/BAN-1/PGA(A)/CR-20/2020-21 dated 20/01/2022 passed by the second respondent vide Annexure M to this writ petition by dismiss the application (I.A.No.1/2021) as well as the appeal filed by the fourth respondent by confirming the order passed by the third respondent and

    ii) Pass any order/s or relief/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant under the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity."

2. It is the case of the Petitioner that he was selected and appointed as a Physical Education Teacher by Respondent No.4-Kalpatharu Institute of Technology on 19.11.1986 and he retired from service on 31.08.2018. As on the date of retirement, the Petitioner had put in 32 years of continuous service with Respondent No.4 and at the time of retirement, he was working as a Physical Education Director. The last drawn pay of the Petitioner was Rs. 44,288/- and Dearness Allowance was Rs. 4,428/-; that after his retirement since the Petitioner was not paid the gratuity amount by the Respondent No.4, he made a representation on 18.09.2018 as also a legal notice dated 27.10.2018. Since the gratuity amount was still not paid, the Petitioner filed an application before Respondent No.3 - Controlling Authority seeking for release of gratuity amount together with interest. Respondent No.3 - Controlling Authority vide order dated 26.11.2020, partly allowed the application and directed the Respondent No.4 to pay an amount of Rs. 8,99,372/- together with interest @ 10% per annum from 03.11.2018 till the date of deposit.

3. Respondent No.4 deposited the amount as ordered by the Controlling Authority and filed an Appeal before the Respondent No.2-Appellate Authority challenging the Order passed by the Controlling Authority. In the Appeal, the primary contention was that, before the Controlling Authority the Principal of the College was arrayed as a party and that the Principal, not having any financial powers, the representative of the Management of the College ought to have been made as a party. In the said appeal an application was also filed by the Appellant therein to bring the necessary party on record. The said application was opposed by the Petitioner by filing objections. However, Respondent No.2 - Appellate Authority vide order dated 23.12.2021, allowed the application. Thereafter, vide order dated 20.01.2022, allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Controlling Authority for fresh adjudication. Being aggrieved, the present Writ Petition is filed.

4. The relief sought for in the above Writ Petition is opposed by Respondent Nos.1 to 3 - State of Karnataka by filing statement of objections as well as by Respondent No.4 which has also filed its statement of objections. The Petitioner has also filed Application I.A.1/2022 seeking to permit the Petitioner to withdraw the amount deposited by Respondent No.4 subject to result of the Writ Petition. The Respondent No.4 has also filed statement of objections to I.A.1/2022.

5. In the statement of objection, Respondent No.4 has contended inter alia that, it is the Principal who has

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top