- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5253 WP No. 12524 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 12524 OF 2015 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: 1. L JAYAMMA, W/O LATE H.B.RANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, 2. RAVI KUMAR H R, S/O LATE H B RANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, 3. SHASHI KUMAR H R, S/O LATE H B RANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT NEAR CHOWDESHWARI TEMPLE, BATAWADI, TUMKUR-572103. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI M C BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE) AND: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC, TUMKUR DIVISION, TUMKUR-572101. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT H R RENUKA, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 23.11.2013 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE IN APPLICATION NO.23/2011 VIDE ANNX-A TO THIS W.P.DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO PAY A SUM OF RS.4,55,979/- AS DIFFERENCE OF WAGES AS WELL AS DIFFERENCE OF TERMINAL BENEFITS WITH INTEREST @18% P.A. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5253 WP No. 12524 of 2015 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER This petition is filed challenging the order dated 23.11.2013 passed in Application No.23/2011 on the file of Labour Court at Bangalore. 2. Application filed under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act of 1947'), by legal representatives of late H.B. Rangaiah, former employee of respondent/Corporation, is rejected. 3. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners would contend that late H.B. Rangaiah, former employee of Corporation was subjected to Disciplinary Enquiry. The Management dismissed H.B. Rangaiah from services. The said order is called in question in an Industrial Dispute. 4. The Labour Court set aside the order of dismissal and passed an order of reinstatement with 50% backwages. The said award was questioned by H.B. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5253 WP No. 12524 of 2015 Rangaiah, former employee as well as Management. Both writ petitions were dismissed confirming the award of Labour Court. Management filed an appeal before the Division Bench of this Court, the said appeal came to be dismissed. Thus the award passed by Labour Court has attained finality. 5. In the meantime, H.B. Rangaiah attained the age of Superannuation on 30.04.2006 and he died on 19.10.2010. 6. It is the case of the petitioners, who are the legal representatives of late H.B. Rangaiah that the benefits flowing from the award, which has attained finality is not paid to the legal representatives. Hence an application is filed under Section 33C(2) of the Act of 1947. 7. In terms of Annexure-A7, the re-fixation is done and the date of superannuation is taken as 25.06.2004. Aggrieved by the said re-fixation of the service benefits, petitioners are before the Labour Court. However, the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5253 WP No. 12524 of 2015 claim made by the petitioners is rejected on the premise that Labour Court has not granted consequential benefits in terms of the award, which has attained finality. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the petitioners made a claim to confer the benefits treating the age of retirement as 30.04.2006. Vide Annexure-A7, the service benefits are counted only up to 25.06.2004 and not up to the date of age of superannuation on 30.04.2006. This aspect has been completely over-looked by Labour Court and the application could not have been rejected. Thus he would contend that impugned order has to be set aside and the benefits flowing from the award, which has attained finality has to be conferred on the petitioners. 9. Learning counsel for the respondent would fairly submit that while preparing Annexure-A pay fixation order, the date of superannuation is erroneously taken as 25.06.2004 instead of 30.04.2006 and it is further submitted that there is a calculation error in computing - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5253 WP No. 12524 of 2015 the increments which the petitioner was not otherwise entitled in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of J.K. Synthetics Ltd v. K.P. Agarwal and another reported in (2007) 2 SCC 433. 10. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner is entitled to all the consequential benefits as the same is not expressly denied in terms of the award passed by the Labour Court. 11. The admitted factual position is the date of superannuation of the petitioner is 30.04.2006 and not 25.06.2004 as computed in the pay fixation order. Since it is submitted that the increments payable to the petitioner have been wrongly calculated in Annexure - A, pay fixation order, without entering into the merits as to whether increments have been wrongly calculated or not, the order at Annexure - A is set-aside. 12. The Labour Court erroneously held that the petitioner is not entitled to make a claim under Section - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:5253 WP No. 12524 of 2015 33C(2) of the Act of 1947. Accordingly, the order of the Labour Court is set aside. Liberty is reserved to the respondent Corporation to pass a fresh order relating to pay fixation treating the date of superannuation as 30.04.2006. In case, the respondent Corporation denies the increment which is granted to the petitioner in terms of Annexure-A7, the petitioner is entitled to question the same in accordance with law. 12. Writ petition is allowed in the aforementioned terms. The impugned order dated 23.11.2013 passed by the Principal Labour Court, Bangalore in Application No.23/2011 is quashed. 13. The respondent Corporation shall carry out the exercise within two months from the date of the copy of this order. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE CHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24