- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5655 WP No. 65998 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 65998 OF 2011 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NEKRTC, BELLARY DIVISION, BELLARY, REPRESENTED AT PRESENT BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER, NEKRTC, CENTRAL OFFICE, SAREGE SADAN, GULBARGA. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRASHANT S. HOSAMANI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI. J.R. BISALADINNI, AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: DISMISSED CONDUCTOR, R/O: AT POST: NEBAKERI, TQ: MUDDEBIHAL, DIST: BIJAPUR. 2. THE ASST. LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND CONTROLLING AUTHORITY, UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, BELLARY DIVISION, DAVANGERE. 3. THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY, UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972, GULBARGA REGION, GULBARGA. … RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. MALA B. BHUTE, AGA FOR R2 AND R3; R1-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5655 WP No. 65998 of 2011 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.Prashant S.Hosamani., counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Mala B.Bhute., AGA for respondents 2 and 3 have appeared in person. Notice to the respondents was ordered on 14.02.2012. A perusal of the office note depicts that the first respondent is served and unrepresented. The first respondent neither engaged any counsel nor conducted the case as party in person. 2. The brief facts are these: The first respondent joined the services of the Corporation in 1986. After several litigations, he was dismissed from service on 17.04.2003. After a lapse of almost five years, he filed an application before the Controlling Authority claiming gratuity. The Controlling Authority vide order dated 26.02.2010 allowed the application and directed the Corporation to pay the gratuity as per the regulations. Aggrieved by the order of the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5655 WP No. 65998 of 2011 Controlling Authority, the Corporation preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority vide order dated 22.11.2010 dismissed the appeal. The orders of Gratuity Authorities are called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition. 3. Counsel for the petitioner and AGA urged several contentions. 4. Counsel for the petitioner in presenting his arguments vehemently contended that the Controlling Authority erred in entertaining the application. He argued by saying that there was an inordinate delay of almost five years in filing the application claiming gratuity. It is also contended that dismissed employee was not entitled for payment of gratuity. Counsel therefore, submits that the orders of the Gratuity Authorities are liable to be set-aside. AGA justified the order of the Gratuity Authorities. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5655 WP No. 65998 of 2011 5. The following points would arise for consideration: 1. Whether the Controlling Authority is justified in entertaining the application claiming gratuity beyond the period of limitation? 2. Whether the Controlling Authority is justified in concluding the first respondent is entitled for gratuity under the regulations? 6. It is pertinent to note that Rule 10 of Payment of Gratuity (Central) Rules, 1972 and also Rule 10 of Karnataka Payment of Gratuity Rules, 1973 prescribes a time frame of 90 days to file an application claiming difference in gratuity. If the application is filed beyond 90 days, the Controlling Authority may accept the application on sufficient cause being shown by the applicant after the expiry of the specified period. Reverting to the facts of the case, the workman was dismissed from service on 17.04.2003. He filed an application claiming gratuity in the year 2008. The applicant filed an application for condonation of delay stating that he had orally requested the Corporation to pay gratuity, but the Corporation did not respond to his request. The Corporation filed a detail - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5655 WP No. 65998 of 2011 statement of objection and prayed for dismissal of the application on the grounds of delay and laches. The Controlling Authority condoned the delay on the ground that the Payment of Gratuity Act is a beneficial legislation and the denial of the gratuity would cause prejudice and injustice to the workman. This is incorrect. The reason is apparent. The applicant was not diligent in approaching the Authority well in time. Hence, the Controlling Authority ought to have considered the financial repercussions on the Corporation. Hence, the reason assigned by the Controlling Authority to condone the delay is unsustainable in law. Furthermore, the workman was dismissed from service on 17.04.2003. However, he filed an application on 30.06.2008. There is an inordinate delay of almost five years. Therefore, in my view, the application filed by the workman is liable to be rejected on the grounds of delay and laches. Accordingly, it is rejected. Moreover, the workman was dismissed from service and he was not entitled to the gratuity under the regulations. Hence, the Controlling Authority has erred in directing the Corporation to pay the gratuity as per the regulations. I may venture to say that the Gratuity Authorities have failed to have - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5655 WP No. 65998 of 2011 regard to relevant consideration and disregarded relevant matters. For the reasons stated above, the orders of the Gratuity Authorities are liable to be set-aside. Accordingly, it is set-aside. 7. The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The order dated 26.02.2010 passed by Controlling Authority in the No.ALCD/PGA/CR-08/2008-09 vide Annexure-A and the order dated:22.11.2010 passed by the Appellant Authority in Appeal No.U.Kaa.Aa.Gu/PGA/Appeal/CR-03/10-11 vide as Annexure-B are quashed. 8. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Because of disposal of the Writ Petition, the amount in deposit, if any is directed to be released/ refunded in favor of the Corporation. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE MRP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 47