IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 68027 OF 2010 (L-KSRTC)

BETWEEN:

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NEKRTC, BELLARY DIVISION, BELLARY, PRESENTLY REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER, NEKRTC, CENTRAL OFFICE, SAREGE SADAN, GULBARGA.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRASHANT HOSAMANI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SHRI P. SHIVANAND, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCC: RETD. CONDUCTOR, R/O: HOUSE NO.78, SAI NILAYA, ABDUL AZEEZ STREET, MILLER PETH, DIST: BELLARY.

Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR 2. THE ASST. LABOUR COMMISSIONER LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH AND CONTROLLING AUTHORITY, COURT OF KARNATAKA UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, DHARWAD BENCH BELLARY DIVISION, DAVANGERE.

3. THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972, GULBARGA REGION, GULBARGA.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAVI HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1;

SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, AGA FOR R2 & R3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND

227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 30/09/2009 PASSED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT IN APPLICATION NO.ALCD/PGA/CR-13/2007- 08 WHICH IS PRODUCED AS (ANNEXURE-A) AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ORDER DATED 30/07/2010 PASSED BY THE 3^RD RESPONDENT IN APPEAL NO.U.Kaa.Aa.Gu:PGA:Appeal:CR-98/09- 10 PRODUCED AS (ANNEXURE-B), IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR DISMISSAL, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)

This petition is filed assailing the order dated 30.07.2010 passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (‘Act of 1972’) and also the order dated 30.09.2009 passed by the Original Authority under the Act of 1972.

2. In terms of the aforementioned order passed by the Original Authority, it directed the petitioner to pay arrears of gratuity and difference of arrears of gratuity required to be paid by the petitioner. Appellate Authority also confirmed the said order.

3. Aggrieved by the aforementioned concurrent findings, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that under the Regulations applicable to the employees of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, the gratuity has to be computed by taking into consideration the basic salary, number of years of service put in and number of months of qualifying service multiplied. Under the Act of 1972, the same has to be calculated by taking into consideration the basic salary, dearness allowance and the number of years of qualifying service.

5. It is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's gratuity was calculated by taking into consideration ₹5,870/- as basic pay as well as the dearness allowance as the basic pay and dearness allowance available to the employee was merged at that point of time. Thus, he would contend that the demand made by the workman to add dearness allowance again to the basic pay is erroneous as it amounts to adding dearness allowance twice to the basic pay.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent - workman would urge that no document is placed by the petitioner - Corporation to urge that ₹5,870/-, the salary paid to the workman at a relevant point of time also included the dearness allowance. 7. This Court had directed the counsel for the petitioner to produce the records to show that figure of ₹5,870/- used to calculate the arrears also includes the dearness allowance.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the document along with the memo dated 16.10.2025 which reveals the basic pay of the petitioner at ₹5,870/- at relevant point of time. No material is placed to indicate that the said figure also includes the dearness allowance.

9. Under these circumstances, the calculation of arrears by the Original Authority confirmed by the Appellate Authority is in a