- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12792 WP No. 65056 of 2012 C/W WP No. 65057 of 2012 WP No. 65058 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT PETITION NO. 65056 OF 2012 (L-KSRTC) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 65057 OF 2012 WRIT PETITION NO. 65058 OF 2012 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 65056 OF 2012 BETWEEN: MR. MURALI HONNAPPA NAYAK, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, SON OF MR. HONNAPPA NAIK, CHOUDAGERI POST: GOKARNA-581 326, TQ: KUMTA, DIST: KARWAR. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NWKRTC, SIRSI DIVISION, SIRSI. 2. ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER, HUBLI DIVISION, HUBLI. 3. DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY, PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972, BELGAUM REGION, BELGAUM. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. N.S. KINI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR R2 & R3) YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGHCOURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12792 WP No. 65056 of 2012 C/W WP No. 65057 of 2012 WP No. 65058 of 2012 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 29/8/2011 IN UKABE/PGA/APPEAL/CR- 1/2010 ANNEXURE-B PASSED BY THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY, PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972 BELGAUM REGION, BELGAUM, THE RESPONDENT NO.3 HEREIN, AS BAD, ILLEGAL AND UN SUSTAINABLE; DECLARE THE ORDER DATED 3/10/2009, ANNEXURE-A IN UPKA/CR-346/07-08 PASSED BY ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972 DHARWAD DIVISION HUBLI AS ONE WITHOUT BASIS, DISCRIMINATORY AND HENCE UNSUSTAINABLE; DIRECT RESPONDENT NO.1 TO RECONSIDER THE CLAIM OF THE PETITIONER ON THE BASIS OF RELEVANT DOCUMENTS & AS PER THE COMPUTATIONS MADE IN RESPECT OF OTHER EMPLOYEES AFTER GRANTING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE PETITIONER TO ESTABLISH HIS CLAIM AND ETC. IN WRIT PETITION NO. 65057 OF 2012 BETWEEN: MR. MARUTHI VENKANNA NAYAK, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, SON OF MR. VENKANNA NAYAK, TALAGERI POST: SANIKATTA, TQ: KUMTA, DIST: KARWAR. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NWKRTC, SIRSI DIVISION, SIRSI. 2. ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER, HUBLI DIVISION, HUBLI. 3. DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12792 WP No. 65056 of 2012 C/W WP No. 65057 of 2012 WP No. 65058 of 2012 PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972, BELGAUM REGION, BELGAUM. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. N.S. KINI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR R2 & R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 29/8/2011 IN UKABE/PGA/APPEAL/CR- 14/2010 ANNEXURE-B PASSED BY THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY, PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972 BELGAUM REGION, BELGAUM, THE RESPONDENT NO.3 HEREIN, AS BAD, ILLEGAL AND UN SUSTAINABLE; DECLARE THE ORDER DATED 17/10/2009, ANNEXURE-A IN UPKA/CR-334/07-08 PASSED BY ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972 DHARWAD DIVISION HUBLI AS ONE WITHOUT BASIS, DISCRIMINATORY AND HENCE UNSUSTAINABLE; DIRECT RESPONDENT NO.1 TO RECONSIDER THE CLAIM OF THE PETITIONER ON THE BASIS OF RELEVANT DOCUMENTS & AS PER THE COMPUTATIONS MADE IN RESPECT OF OTHER EMPLOYEES AFTER GRANTING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE PETITIONER TO ESTABLISH HIS CLAIM AND ETC. IN WRIT PETITION NO. 65058 OF 2012 BETWEEN: MR. GANAPATHI NAGAPPA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, KARUNALAYA CROSS, MELINAKERI, GOKARNA-581 326, TQ: KUMTA, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NWKRTC, SIRSI DIVISION, SIRSI. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12792 WP No. 65056 of 2012 C/W WP No. 65057 of 2012 WP No. 65058 of 2012 2. ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER, HUBLI DIVISION, HUBLI. 3. DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY, PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972, BELGAUM REGION, BELGAUM. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. N.S. KINI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR R2 & R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 30/11/2011 IN UKABE/PGA/APPEAL/CR- 50/2009 & 58/2009 ANNEXURE-B PASSED BY THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY, PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972 BELGAUM REGION, BELGAUM, THE RESPONDENT NO.3 HEREIN, AS BAD, ILLEGAL AND UN SUSTAINABLE; DECLARE THE ORDER DATED 27/07/2009, ANNEXURE-A IN UPAKA/CR-347/07-08 PASSED BY ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972 DHARWAD DIVISION HUBLI AS ONE WITHOUT BASIS, DISCRIMINATORY AND HENCE UNSUSTAINABLE; DIRECT RESPONDENT NO.1 TO RECONSIDER THE CLAIM OF THE PETITIONER ON THE BASIS OF RELEVANT DOCUMENTS & AS PER THE COMPUTATIONS MADE IN RESPECT OF OTHER EMPLOYEES AFTER GRANTING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE PETITIONER TO ESTABLISH HIS CLAIM AND ETC. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12792 WP No. 65056 of 2012 C/W WP No. 65057 of 2012 WP No. 65058 of 2012 ORAL ORDER The present writ petitions are filed by the workman calling in question the calculation of gratuity made by the Assistant Labour Commissioner1, which has been affirmed by the Appellate Authority/Deputy Labour Commissioner. The details of the period of service, and the calculation of the gratuity made in the case of the petitioners is as under: Sl.No. WP No. & Name No.of years service Calculation of gratuity under Section 4(2) of the payment of Gratuity Act (Rs.) Calculation of gratuity under Section 4(5) of the payment of Gratuity Act (Rs.) 1 WP No.65056/12 (Murali) 25 years 3 months 1,56,447/- 1,83,820/- 2 WP No.65057/2012 (Maruthi) 28 years 7 months 1,83,570/- 1,94,795/- 3 WP No.65058/2012 (Ganapati) 27 years 7 months 1,58,695/- 1,58,466/- 1 Hereinafter for short ‘Original Authority’ - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12792 WP No. 65056 of 2012 C/W WP No. 65057 of 2012 WP No. 65058 of 2012 2. It is pertinent to note here that the explanation to Section 4(2) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 19722 indicates the manner of computation of gratuity. Section 2 of the Act defines wages, which includes all emoluments earned by the employee, including the dearness allowance, but excludes any bonus, commission, house rent allowance, overtime wages and any other allowance. Section 4(5) of the Act stipulates that “nothing mentioned in Section 4 shall affect the right of an employee to receive better gratuity under any award or agreement or contract with the employer”. 3. The original authority while assessing the gratuity payable under Section 4(2) has included the monthly wages along with dearness allowance. While considering the gratuity payable under the regulations of the respondent-Corporation for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether the petitioners would be entitled to a higher amount having regard to Section 4(5) of the Act, the 2 Hereinafter for short ‘the Act’ - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12792 WP No. 65056 of 2012 C/W WP No. 65057 of 2012 WP No. 65058 of 2012 authority has reckoned the monthly wages without adding the dearness allowance. 4. It is the primary contention put forth by the petitioners in the above writ petitions that while calculating the amounts under the regulations of the Corporation, for the purpose of ascertaining whether the same would tantamount to a higher amount, to enable payment of the same having regard to Section 4(5) of the Act, the Authority has not added the dearness allowance to the monthly wages. 5. It is pertinent to note that in WP No.65056/2012 and WP No.65057/2012, the authority after determining the gratuity payable under Section 4(2) of the Act and under the regulations of the Corporation has recorded a finding that the gratuity payable under the regulations of the Corporation was more and having regard to Section 4(5) of the Act, the amount as determined under the regulations of this Corporation would be payable. Whereas, in WP No.65058/2012, the Authority has recorded a finding that - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12792 WP No. 65056 of 2012 C/W WP No. 65057 of 2012 WP No. 65058 of 2012 the gratuity payable under Section 4(2i) of the Act is more. The finding recorded by the original authority has been affirmed by the appellate authority. 6. Although, it is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that while making the calculations under the regulations of the Corporation, the dearness allowance ought to be added to the monthly wages, it is pertinent to note that no material has been placed on record to indicate that for the purpose of calculating the gratuity under the regulations of the Corporation, both the monthly wages and dearness allowance is required to be added. 7. Both the original authority and the appellate authority having calculated the amounts as noticed above and having determined the gratuity payable, in the absence of the petitioners demonstrating that the calculation so made is in any manner erroneous or contrary to any material available on record, the question of interfering with the determination made by the original authority, which is - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12792 WP No. 65056 of 2012 C/W WP No. 65057 of 2012 WP No. 65058 of 2012 affirmed by the Appellate Authority in the present writ petitions do not arise. 8. Hence, the writ petitions are dismissed as being devoid of merit. Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE HMB CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24