- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1435 WP No. 51316 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 51316 OF 2014 (S-KSRTC) BETWEEN: VENKATAKRISHNA S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS 1. SMT NAGARATHNA, W/O LATE VENKATAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS. 2. MANJESH KUMAR, S/O LATE VENKATAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT NO.18, BALAJI CROSS, KATRIGUPPE MAIN ROAD, VIVEKANANDA NAGARA, BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE, BENGALURU. (CAUSE TITLE AMENDED AS PER THE ORDER DATED 05.04.2017PASSED BY THE HON'BLE COURT) …PETITIONERS (BY SRI HANUMANTHARAYAPPA K, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER K.S.R.T.C , BANGALORE RURAL DIVISION, KIMCO BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560075. 2. DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER & APPELLATE AUTHORITIES, KARMIKA BHAVANA, Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1435 WP No. 51316 of 2014 BANNERAGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560066. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT H R RENUKA, ADVOCATE FOR R1, SMT RASHMI RAO, HCGP FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DT.22.12.2012 PASSED BY THE R-1, VIDE ANNX-A.DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CALCULATE GRATUITY AMOUNT ON THE BASIS OF GROSS SALARY AS ON THE DATE OF SUPERANNUATION OF THE PETITIONER AND PAY THE SAME TO THE PETITIONER WITH INTEREST AT 18% P.A. 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 Heard Sri.Hanumantharayappa, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Smt. H.R.Renuka, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Smt.Rashmi Rao, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.2. 2. This Writ Petition is arising from the order dated 22.12.2012 passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner. In terms of the said order, two appeals before the authority were adjudicated. Appeal filed by the employer-KSRTC is - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1435 WP No. 51316 of 2014 dismissed and appeal filed by the employee - the present petitioner is allowed in part. Aggrieved by the disallowed claim, the employee- petitioner is before this Court. 3. Certain facts are not in dispute. The original petitioner was employee of respondent No.1-Corporation, and retired on 31.05.2003. On his retirement, the employee claimed retirement benefits wherein he urged that he is entitled to the retirement benefits by taking into account Dearness Allowance and the last drawn salary. 4. The employee made a claim before the Assistant Labour Commissioner. The said claim is allowed in part. Aggrieved by the said order, the employee filed an appeal before the Deputy Labour Commissioner. Said appeal is allowed in part and the order of the Assistant Labour Commissioner was partially modified. 5. The employee is before this Court impugning the rejected claim by the Deputy Labour Commissioner. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1435 WP No. 51316 of 2014 6. It is urged by the petitioner that in terms of the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 the petitioner is entitled to retirement benefits by taking into account the last drawn salary as well as the dearness allowance. 7. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 would submit that the Division Bench of this Court in the case of North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation and others vs. Kallurappa S/o Nagappa Hirehal and others1 has held that the employees of 1st respondent-Corporation are entitled to the payment of gratuity as per the settlement arrived at on 17.07.1999 between the employer and employee and not beyond the terms of the settlement. 8. Learned counsel appearing for 1st respondent submits that against the aforementioned order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, the aggrieved parties have filed 1 W.A.No.100195/2015 and connected matters - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1435 WP No. 51316 of 2014 a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Apex Court, and same is pending consideration. 9. Since, the Division Bench of this Court has taken a view which is against the contentions raised by the petitioner, the present petition does not survive for consideration. Hence the matter is disposed of with following observations. 10. It is made clear that in case, aforementioned Special Leave Petition is allowed and if the orders passed in Writ Appeal are modified and set aside, the petitioner is at liberty to move this Court for reopening the case and to seek appropriate orders in terms of the orders passed in the aforementioned Special Leave Petition. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE CHS, GVP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43