IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 64585 OF 2016 (L-KSRTC)

BETWEEN:

T. G. SOMAIAH, S/O. LATE GUNDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT "ANJANADRI NILAYA", 3^RD MAIN, BEHIND SHARADA SAW MILL, BATAWADI, TUMKUR-572 103.

(BENEFIT OF SENIOR CITIZENSHIP NOT CLAIMED)

…PETITIONER (BY SRI M C BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER, AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY, REGION-II, KARMIKA BHAVANA, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 026.

Dig itally signed by PRAMILA G V 2. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER Location: AND CONTROLLING AUTHORITY, HIGH COURT UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, OF DIVISION-I, KARMIKA BHAVANA, KARNATAKA BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 026.

3. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC, TUMKUR DIVISION, TUMKUR-572 101.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1 AND R2, SMT H R RENUKA, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 11.11.2011 VIDE ANNX-B TO THIS W.P. PASSED BY THE R-2 AND ORDER DTD 23.04.2015 VIDE ANNX-C TO THIS W.P. PASSED BY THE R-1 IN SO FAR AS DENIAL OF THE DIFFERENCE OF THE GRATUITY FOR THE BADLI PERIOD FROM 10.11.1971 TO 17.01.1975 IS CONCERNED.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed assailing the order dated 11.11.2011.

passed by the Controlling Authority/Assistant Labour Commissioner under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The petitioner's claim for gratuity from 10.11.1971 to 18.01.1975 is denied, as such the petitioner seeks payment of gratuity by taking the said period into reckoning while computing the gratuity payable.

2. The Controlling Authority has partly allowed the claim and directed payment of Rs.43,564/- towards arrears of gratuity and the petitioner is aggrieved by the order rejecting the claim.

3. In terms of the impugned order, the Controlling Authority has directed payment of Rs.43,564/-, towards certain period which was excluded by the respondent-Corporation. However, the petitioner's claim for payment of gratuity from 10.11.1971 to 18.01.1975 is excluded on the premise that there are no records to show that the petitioner worked for the aforementioned period.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would urge that the fact that the petitioner was appointed on 10.11.1971 is very much established and same is also the finding recorded by the Controlling Authority and then he was put on probation in the year 1975 and later he was made as a permanent employee is also very much established as the said fact was not in dispute and that being the position, the Controlling Authority ought to have held that the petitioner worked from 10.11.1971 till 18.01.1975 when he was put on probation. Thus, it is urged that the exclusion of the aforementioned period from 10.11.1971 to 18.01.1975 is contrary to law.

5. Learned counsel would urge that the respondent-

Corporation ought to have produced the records relating to the petitioner's service from 10.11.1971 till 18.01.1975 i.e., the date on which the petitioner was brought on probation and the respondent-Corporation being the custodian of the documents, has not produced the record, as such, adverse inference has to be drawn against the respondent - Corporation.

6. It is also urged by the learned counsel for petitioner that the Controlling Authority has held that the petitioner has worked for 2 years between 1971 to 1975 and it could not have denied gratuity for the aforementioned 2 years.

7. In support of his contention that the burden is on the respondent-Corporation, learned counsel for the petitioner would also refer to the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Bengaluru Metropolitan Transport Corporation vs. The Deputy Labour Commissioner and others¹

ILR 2009 KAR 405

8. Lear