- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14253 WP No. 64664 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 64664 OF 2011 (L-PG) BETWEEN: 1. KARNATAKA LINGAYAT EDUCATION SOCIETY REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN BOARD OF MANAGEMENT COLLEGE ROAD, BELGAUM. 2. KLE SOCIETY’S B.V.BELLAD LAW COLLEGE BELGAUM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL, LINGARAJ COLLEGE CAMPUS, BELGAUM. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B.HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI. SIDDAPPA LAKKAPPA HUDLI AGE: MAJOR, OCC: RETIRED, R/O: 198, SECTOR NO.II, SHIVABASAVANAGAR, BELGAUM. 2. THE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY APPOINTED UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT AND ASST. LABOUR COMMISSIONER, BELGAUM. 3. DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY, UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972, BELGAUM DIVISION, BELGAUM. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MRUTYUNJAY TATA BANGI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. PRAVEEN K.UPPAR, AGA FOR R2 AND R3) Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14253 WP No. 64664 of 2011 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS LEADING TO THE PASSING OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30/04/2010 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN PGA:SR:NO.112/2008 (ANNEXURE-D) AND ANOTHER ORDER 27/04/2011 PASSED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT IN NO. PGA:APPEAL/CR-87/2010 (ANNUXURE-F) AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 2. Petitioner is assailing the orders dated 30.04.2010 and 27.04.2011 passed by respondent nos. 2 and 3 respectively. In terms of the said orders, petitioner was directed to pay gratuity by taking into account the Dearness Allowance payable to the respondent-employee on par with the Dearness Allowance fixed by the State Government. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would place reliance on the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14253 WP No. 64664 of 2011 Karnataka Lingayat Education Society & Anr. Vs Siddappa1 wherein the Court has held that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide the issue relating to service benefits claimed by the employee. In the said judgment, since the Court has held that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction, the observations made by the Trial Court that the plaintiff in the said suit is not entitled to the service benefits to be calculated based on Dearness Allowance on par with the State Government employees is without jurisdiction. 4. Thus the question that requires to be answered is whether the petitioner is entitled to the service benefits by calculating Dearness Allowance on par with the Dearness Allowance paid to the State Government employees. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also refer to the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Siddartha Educational Society vs Tumkur District Technical Institutions Non-teaching Employees Union and another2 to contend that the issue raised by the petitioner in this case is covered in favour of the petitioner. 1 RSA No.100086/2018, disposed of on 11.02.2025 2 ILR 2003 Kar. 1966 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14253 WP No. 64664 of 2011 5. In the aforementioned judgment, the Court has held that the expression “the pay” does not include the monetary benefits like Dearness Allowance, House Rent Allowance and other allowances. That being the position, the respondent No.1 cannot claim monetary benefit by urging that the Dearness Allowance payable to the State Government employees is to be taken into consideration while calculating the monetary service benefits to respondent No.1. 6. It is noticed from the impugned orders that the authorities have held that respondent No.1 is entitled to the service benefits by taking into consideration the Dearness Allowance on par with the State Government employees. Hence the monetary service benefits payable by the petitioner have to be recalculated by taking into consideration the Dearness Allowance payable to the respondent in terms of the service conditions governing the petitioner and respondent. 7. Hence the following: ORDER (i) Writ Petition is allowed-in-part. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14253 WP No. 64664 of 2011 (ii) Impugned orders dated 30.04.2010 passed by the Controlling Authority, Belgaum (Annexure – D) and 27.04.2011 passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner & Appellate Authority, Belagavi (Annexure – F) are set aside. (iii) The matter is remitted to the Controlling Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act and Assistant Labour Commissioner, Belagavi - respondent no. 2 for fresh consideration keeping in mind the observations made above. (iv) If at all, the amount is already paid to respondent No.1 and after adjudication, if it is found that respondent No.1 is not entitled to the amount which he has received, the difference amount if any, has to be reimbursed to the petitioner. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE brn Ct:vh List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2