Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 1815
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MR SURAJ GOVINDARAJ, J
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE – Appellant
Versus
SRI.NANJUNDAPPA S/O LATE GOPALAPPA SITHAREDDYHALLI – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 32655 OF 2018 (L-PG)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. BHOJEGOUDA T. KOLLER
Gratuity must be paid if employee duties are established, irrespective of formal appointment documentation.
Headnote:This writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 challenges the order of the Assistant Labour Commissioner concerning gratuity for a deceased employee. The court affirms the findings of the lower authorities regarding the validity of the payment claim despite the absence of formal appointment documentation. The decisive issue is whether the claimant fulfilled employment obligations; the court finds no merit in the appellant's arguments. The petition is consequently dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the petitioners seek to quash the gratuity order. (Para 1 , 2 , 5) |
| 2. the court examines the validity of the gratuity payment. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court finds employment obligations fulfilled. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. the petition is dismissed. (Para 8) |
ORDER
1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
a. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order quashing the order dated 25.10.2014 passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner & Court of Payment of Gratuity, Bengaluru in No.SaKaAhBem- 3/PGA/CR -1 145/2012-13 dated 25.10.2014 vide Annexure-A to the Writ Petition;
b. Pass such other order or direction, as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interests of justice and equity.
2. One Smt. Anjanamma, was working in the Government hostel at Srinivaspura from 12.08.1998 till her death on 4.6.2012. Subsequently after the expiry her husband, her son sought for payment of Gratuity. The Controlling Authority vide order dated 25.10.2014 at Annexure-A having come to the conclusion that the said Smt. Anjanamma., has worked for 14 years calculated the amount of Gratuity at Rs.29,319/- and directed the same to be paid.
3. It is Aggrieved by the same the petitioners had filed appeal before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority vide its order dated 25.10.2014 confirmed the order and directed payment of the amount as such ordered with 10% interest. It is aggrieved by the same the petitioners are before this Court.
4. The contention of Sri. Bhojegouda.T. Koller, learned counsel for the petitioner is that no document of appointment had been produced by the respondent before the Controlling Authority to establish the appointment of Smt.Anjanamma., by Social Welfare Department and as such the Controlling Authority could not make payment of the due amounts.
5. The respondent though served has remained unrepresented.
6. The only question being whether Smt. Anjanamma., was working at Government Hostel and discharged her obligations? There is no dispute about Smt. Anjanamma discharging her duties from 12.08.1998 and continuing to do so till her death on 4.6.2012.
7. The contention of the petitioner is that no document to establish the appointment of said Smt. Anjanamma., has been produced. I am of the considered opinion that irrespective of the production of documents or otherwise the fact that Smt. Anjanamma has discharged her duties as from 12.08.1998 to 04.06.2012, necessary Gratuity amounts would have to be paid.
8. As such I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Controlling Authority as also appellate authority and as such, the petition stands dismissed.
