- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14190 WP No. 65997 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 65997 OF 2011 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NEKRTC, BALLARI DIVISION, BALLARI REP. BY THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER, NEKRTC, CENTRAL OFFICE, SAREGE SADAN, GULBARGA. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRASHANT S. HOSMANI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. K. NAGANAGOUDA EX. CONDUCTOR, BY LRS, 1A. K. PARVATAGOUDA S/O K. HANUMANTAGOUDA, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: PVT SERVICE, 1B. K. HANUMANTAGOUDA AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: PVT. SERVICE. 1C. K.S. HANUMANTAGOUDA, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: PVT. SERVICE. RESPONDENT NO. 1A TO 1C ARE R/O RAVI TAILORS, HAMPI ROAD, HOSPET, DIST. BALLARI. 2. THE ASST. LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND CONTROLLING AUTHORITY, BALLARI DIVISION, BALLARI. 3. THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISIONER AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY, UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972, GULBARGA REGION, GULBARGA …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, AGA FOR R2, R3; NOTICE TO R1(A), R1(B), AND R1(C) IS HELD SUFFICIEHT) Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14190 WP No. 65997 of 2011 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 30/09/2008 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN APPLICATION NO. SA.KAA.A.DAA/PGA/CR- 103/2006-2007 WHICH IS PRODUCED AS (ANNEXURE-A) AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ORDER DATED 31/12/2010 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN APPEAL NO.U.KAA.AA.GU./PGA/APPEAL/CR- 45/10-11 PRODUCED AS (ANNEXURE-B) AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING B GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) This petition is filed assailing the order passed by the Original Authority as well as the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratitude Act. 2. In terms of the impugned order passed by the original authority, the petitioner is directed to pay Rs.51,760/- towards gratuity payable to the respondent No.1 who is now no more and represented by his legal representatives. 3. The Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal on the premise that the appeal is not filed in time and the application for condonation of delay was rejected. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14190 WP No. 65997 of 2011 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner-Corporation had paid Rs.26,888/- to the workman and same is admitted by the legal representatives of the deceased workman in the cross- examination. 5. This Court has perused the cross-examination. From the cross-examination, it is not possible to conclusively hold that what is paid is towards payment of gratuity. Moreover, the petitioner-Corporation ought to have produced the records for having paid the amount in case the amount is paid towards gratuity. Without there being any documentary evidence, the Original Authority declined to accept the contention that part of the gratuity amount is paid. 6. This Court does not find any error in the order passed by the Original Authority which insisted for proof in the form of documentary evidence as the admission in the cross-examination was not conclusive and was bit vague. The Original Authority has dismissed the appeal on the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14190 WP No. 65997 of 2011 ground of limitation. Since the order passed by the Appellate Authority is certainly a plausible view in view of alleged admission, which is vague, this Court is of the view that it is not proper to interfere with the order passed by the Original Authority merely because one more view is also possible, if the alleged admission is treated as conclusive proof. Under these circumstances, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE NAA/CT-ASC List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3