IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 21264 OF 2023 (L-PG)

BETWEEN:

SOLITAIR BUILD TECH PVT LTD SOUVENIR CONSTRUCTIONS, REP BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, MR ANWAR PASHA, NO 349, 2ND FLOOR, 9TH MAIN ROAD, 25TH CROSS, BANASHANKARI, 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE- 560 070 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. DEEPAK B R., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI. MANJUNATH S/O LATE B BORE GOWDA, NO 7/1, 36TH A CROSS, 2ND MAIN ROAD, 4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, Digitally signed b y B BANGALORE 560 096 LAVANYA Location: 2. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER HIGH AND LABOUR AUTHORITY COURT OF BANGALORE DIVISION 2, KARNATAKA KARNATAKA LABOUR RESEARCH CENTRE, KSLI, 2ND FLOOR, ROOM NO 23 AND 24, MANJUNATHNAGAR, BAGALAGUNTE, BANGALORE 560 073

3. THE LABOUR OFFICER UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, SUB 2, KARNATAKA BHAWAN, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE 560 096 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NAIK V S.,ADVOCATE FOR R1;

SR.RAJENDRA K.R, AGA FOR R2 AND R3)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 23.08.2023 PASSED IN CR -18/2022- 23 PASSED BY THE R-2 ASST LABOUR COMMISSIONER APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT DIVISION-2 BANGALORE.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

ORAL ORDER

Petitioner is before this Court seeking to set aside the order dated 23.08.2023 passed IN CR - 18/2022-23 by the respondent No. 2 by which the respondent No.2 dismissed the appeal preferred by petitioner and consequently seeks to set aside the final order passed by the respondent No.3 - Controlling Authority dated 27.11.2018.

2. It is the contention of the learned for the petitioner that the petitioner is not an establishment that would fall under the Gratuity Act, which has not been considered by the respondent No.3 while passing the impugned order.

3. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to the order passed by the respondent No.3, the Controlling Authority, due to the wrong advice, the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court in WP No. 43910/2019. The said writ petition was heard, and the learned Single Judge of this Court did not agree with the petitioner and accordingly dismissed the petition.

4. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred a writ appeal before this Court, which also came to be dismissed, affirming the orders of the learned Single Judge.

5. The petitioner preferred a review petition in RP No. 40/22 in WA No.4069/2019 before the Division Bench of this Court to review the order passed in the WA No.

4069 of 2019.

6. It is the contention of the learned counsel of the petitioner that he had approached the Division Bench of this Court to review the order and to provide him the liberty to approach the appropriate forum for consideration of the matter on merits, as he does not come within the definition of the establishment or fall within the purview of Gratuity Act, as he has only 6 employees and the requirement in law is more than 10.

7. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the review petition came to be withdrawn by the petitioner, and a liberty was given to approach the appropriate forum in accordance with law. Therefore, he would contend that the liberty that was granted in the review petition was a liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum and the forum was to consider the claim of the petitioner on its merits rather than on delay, as he had argued the matter with regard to condonation of delay, which was not considered by the Writ Court and the Writ Appeal Court.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that when such a liberty is granted by the Hon'ble Division Bench, the appropriate authority ought to have considered the merits of the matter rather than the delay, as he has approached the appropriate authority within the prescribed t