IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

WRIT PETITION NO. 109707/2017 (L-PG)

BETWEEN:

The Chairman

Syndicate Bank

Head Office

Manipal 576 119

Now represented by

The Branch Manager

Siraguppa 583 121

… Petitioner

(By Sri. Suresh S. Gundi, Advocate)

AND:

Shri. B. K. Srinivasa Rao

Near TVS Suzuki Show Room

Opp. VKJJ College Ballari Road

Siraguppa 583 121, Ballari Dist.

… Respondent

(By Sri. Sourabh A. Sondur for Sri. K. L. Patil, Adv.)

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the

Constitution of India praying to quash the final order dated

31.05.2017 passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal –

cum – Labour Court, Bengaluru, in Misc.No.52/2005 produced at

Annexure-C.

W.P.No.109707/2017

2

This petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’

Group this day, the Court made the following:

ORDER

The petitioner Bank has filed the instant writ

petition with a prayer to quash the order dated

31.05.2017

passed

by

the

Central

Government

Industrial Tribunal – Cum – Labour Court, Bengaluru,

(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’, for short) in

Misc.No.52/2005, filed by the respondent herein under

Section 33 C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

(hereinafter referred to as ‘the ID Act, for short).

2.

The brief facts of the case that would be

relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are:

The respondent herein was working as a pigmy

collector with the petitioner Bank. The services of the

respondent

was

terminated

vide

order

dated

12.04.2005. The respondent thereafterwards had made

a request to the petitioner Bank to settle his gratuity

amount and since the same was refused, he had

approached the Tribunal under Section 33C(2) of the ID

W.P.No.109707/2017

3

Act and prayer made in the said application was

opposed by the petitioner Bank by filing statement of

objection. The petitioner Bank had raised an objection

with regard to the maintainability of the claim petition,

having regard to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex

Court in the case of State of Panjab Vs. Labour Court,

Jullundur and Others, reported in AIR 1979 SC 1981.

The

Tribunal

vide

the

order

impugned

dated

31.05.2017, has

allowed the said

application

and

directed the respondent Bank to pay the gratuity

amount of `73,107.70 with interest at the rate of 18%

p.a. from the date of application till realization. Being

aggrieved by the same, the petitioner Bank is before

this Court.

3.

Learned

counsel

for

the

petitioner

Bank

submits

that

the

Tribunal

had

no

jurisdiction

to

entertain the application filed by the respondent under

Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, 1947. He submits that,

having regard to the provisions of the Payment of

W.P.No.109707/2017

4

Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act

of 1972’, for short), the respondent ought to have

approached the competent authority under the said Act,

if he had any grievance with regard to non-payment of

gratuity. He submits that, though the petitioner Bank

had raised objection with regard to maintainability of

the petition before the Tribunal, the same has not been

properly appreciated by the Tribunal. He submits that

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of

Panjab (supra), has held that payment of gratuity due

under the Act of 1972, must be taken care under the

said Act alone and the application under Section 33C(2)

of the ID Act, 1947 is not maintainable.

4.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent submits that, similar class of employees had

earlier approached the Tribunal and they were granted

the relief by the Tribunal and considering the same, on

the ground of party, even the petitioner is required to

be granted similar relief. He submits that, it is a

W.P.No.109707/2017

5

settled principle of