- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11824 WP No. 71370 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT PETITION NO. 71370 OF 2012 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NORTH WEST KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, HUBLI DIVISION, HUBLI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRAKASH N. HOSAMANE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. NOORMOHAMMAD A. BEPARI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: CHARGE MAN, R/O. KATAGERI ONI, OPPOSITE URDU SCHOOL, OLD HUBLI, HUBLI. 2. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND CONTROLLER UNDER GRATUITY PAYMENT ACT, 1972, DHARWAD DIVISION, HUBLI. 3. THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER GRATUITY PAYMENT ACT, 1972, BELGAUM REGION, BELGAUM. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ANANT P. SAVADI, 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:11824 WP No. 71370 of 2012 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT DIRECTION OR ORDER INCLUDING A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED IN NO.UPAKA/CR/7/09-10 DATED 25/03/2010 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A AND THE ORDER DATED 27/02/2012 PASSED IN NO.UKAAABE/PGA/APPEAL/CR/59/2010 BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-B AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs: i) Issue a writ direction or order including a writ of certiorari quashing the order passed in NO.UPaka/CR/7/09-10 dated 25.03.2010 passed by the respondent No.2 copy of which is produced as Annexrue-A and the order dated 27.02.2012 passed in No.UKaaABe/PGA/appeal/CR/59/2010 by the respondent No.3 which is produced as Annexure-B, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11824 WP No. 71370 of 2012 ii) Grant such other and further relief as this Hon’ble Court may please deem fit in the circumstances of the case. 2. It is forthcoming that respondent No.1 was employed as a Charge man with the petitioner-Corporation and he retired on 20.02.2003 after having worked for nearly 35 years. The respondent No.1-workman filed an application before the respondent No.2-Assistant Labour Commissioner1 and Controller under Gratuity Payment Act,1972 contending inter alia that respondent No.1 is entitled for total amount of ₹.4,89,160/- towards gratuity and that only a sum of ₹.3,03,435/- was paid by the petitioner-Corporation and that a balance amount of ₹. 1,85,575/- is due for payment. It is the contention of the petitioner-Corporation that respondent No.1-workman has approached respondent No.2-Assistant Labour Commissioner after lapse of 7 years. 1 For short hereinafter ‘ALC” - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11824 WP No. 71370 of 2012 3. It is forthcoming from the records that the petitioner-Corporation contends that the Workmen had worked for 33 years 10 months and the Corporation deducted a sum of ₹ 29,952/- towards income tax, Rs.700 towards festival advance and thereby deducted a total sum of ₹ 30,652/- from the gratuity amount of the respondent No.1 and paid the requisite amount. 4. The Assistant Labour Commissioner by order dated 25.03.2010 held that the respondent No.1-workman was entitled to gratuity amount of Rs.3,25,773/- and that the workman was paid only Rs.2,85,013/- and hence he is entitled to the remaining amount of Rs.40,760/- together with interest at 10% from 01.04.2003. Being aggrieved, the Corporation approached the respondent No.3-Deputy Labour Commissioner in an appeal, which was dismissed by the order dated 25.07.2011. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11824 WP No. 71370 of 2012 5. Although, it is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No.1 has approached the concerned authorities after lapse of 7 years and that the respondent No.2-Assistant Labour Commissioner, ought not to have condoned the delay of 7 years, having regard to the period of service that the respond No.1-workman has undergone with the petitioner- Corporation i.e., nearly a period of 35 years and keeping in mind the quantum of the amount that has been ordered to be paid by the respondent No.2 which has been affirmed by the respondent No.3. The factual matrix, noticed above makes it clear that the present case is not one where the extra-ordinary discretionary jurisdiction of this Court contained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is required to be exercised. 6. It is pertinent to notice that in the order dated 13.02.2013, this Court ordered that the Controlling Authority is at liberty to release the amount in deposit to - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11824 WP No. 71370 of 2012 the extent of Rs.28,103/- in favour of the respondent No.1- workman. 7. In view of the aforementioned, the present writ petition is disposed of directing the Controlling Authority to release the balance amount deposited by the Corporation to the respondent No.1-workman, forthwith. Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE HMB CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29