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
| 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:
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
Birla Institute of Technology v. State of Jharkhand (2019) 4 SCC 513
Forfeiture of gratuity under Section 4(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 requires a co-relation between the exception and the extent of loss or damage suffered by the employer.
Gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 must include entire continuous service, including stop-gap employment, unless exempted by the appropriate Government.
Gratuity is a statutory entitlement not subject to withholding after superannuation absent explicit legal grounds for forfeiture, emphasizing employee protection under the Act.
Teachers who were in service as on 3rd April, 1997 and had rendered service of not less than 5 years were entitled to gratuity, even if they had retired or terminated their services prior to the amen....
The relationship of employer and employee cannot change due to external funding, and liability for gratuity under the Gratuity Act remains with the employer. The court's order for enforcement of the ....
A person who receives wages directly from an employer, regardless of the mode of appointment, qualifies as an employee entitled to gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
The Payment of Gratuity Act allows claims for both statutory and contractual gratuity to be adjudicated under the same authority, ensuring employee rights are protected.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.