- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26329 WP No. 5015 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO.5015 OF 2020 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER BMTC, NORTH DIVISION YASHWANTHAPUR BENGALURU-560 022. NOW REPRESENTED BY BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER BMTC, CENTRAL OFFICE K. H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU-560 027. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE) AND: MR. MEER MAZBOOL PASHA S/O LATE G. ABDUL LATHEEF SAB AGED ABOUT ..YEARS R/AT NO.6D, 14TH CROSS FATHIA LAYOUT, APJ ABDUL KALAM AZAD MAIN ROAD GOVINDAPURA, AREBIC COLLEGE POST BENGALURU-560 045. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.M.C.BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE ORDER DATED 14.01.2019 PASSED BY THE PRL. LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE IN APPEAL NO.17/2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26329 WP No. 5015 of 2020 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER This petition is filed assailing the order dated 14.01.2019 in application No.17/2016 passed by the Labour Court, Bangalore. In terms of the said order, the application filed by the respondent under Section 33-C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is allowed in part. 2. The Labour Court directed the petitioner- Corporation to pay Rs.21,900/- as gold medal allowance and Rs.84,310/- as leave encashment benefit, in all Rs.1,06,210/- under the aforementioned two heads. The Labour Court also awarded 18% interest in case the amount is not paid within 30 days from the date of the order. 3. Aggrieved by said order, the petitioner- Corporation is before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, earlier the respondent was dismissed from service for misconduct. The said penalty was - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26329 WP No. 5015 of 2020 questioned before the Labour Court. The Labour Court has set aside the penalty of dismissal of service and directed reinstatement without back wages, but with continuity of service. The award passed by the Labour Court was accepted as there was no challenge by both sides. 4. The petitioner-Corporation claims that it has implemented the award by reinstating the petitioner and granting continuity of service and nothing more is pending implementation in terms of the award. 5. The respondent- employee moved an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act of 1947 on the premise that the benefits conferred under the award are not granted. 6. In the aforementioned proceeding, the petitioner- Corporation opposed the claim on the ground that the leave encashment benefit is not specifically granted by the Labour Court and gold medal allowance is also not granted by the Labour Court. Consequently, the said claim is deemed to have been rejected as such, there is no award in respect of the said claim. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26329 WP No. 5015 of 2020 7. It is also urged on behalf of the petitioner- Corporation that the application under Section 33-C(2) is not maintainable as there is no adjudication in respect of the said claim. 8. Referring to the order passed by the Labour Court, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that in the first place the application should have been rejected as there is no award in respect of the relief which is granted in favour of the respondent which includes payment relating to consequential benefits like gold medal allowance and leave encashment are deemed to have been rejected as there is no specific finding relating to such entitlement in the award passed by the Labour Court. 9. Learned counsel would also refer to Section 33- C(2) of the Act of 1947 to contend that application under Section 33-C(2) is maintainable only in case of a settlement or an award that can be quantified in terms of monetary benefit. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26329 WP No. 5015 of 2020 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also refer to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in BMTC vs. G.V. Thimmappa1 to substantiate his contention. 11. It is noticed from the records that the gold medal was awarded to the respondent in the year 2012. There is no dispute that once the gold medal is awarded, the awardee is entitled to Rs.100/- per month towards maintenance of the gold medal as gold medal allowance. It is not in dispute that the allowance is not paid from 2012 onwards. The respondent has attained the age of superannuation on 28.02.2016. 12. It is noticed that there is no adjudication relating to the gold medal allowance by the Labour Court in the earlier round of litigation. This Court cannot hold that the said allowance was denied by the Labour Court. 1W.A. No.16714/2011 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26329 WP No. 5015 of 2020 13. Under these circumstances, respondent is entitled to gold medal allowance from the date of award conferring the gold medal till the date of superannuation. 14. However, the Labour Court while setting aside the award has not granted relief relating to leave encashment and other consequential benefits. This being the position, the impugned order awarding Rs.1,06,210/- is unsustainable as the order also includes consequential benefits like leave encashment which was not granted by the Labour Court. 15. For the aforementioned reasons, respondent is only entitled to gold medal maintenance allowance of Rs.100/- per month, which can be calculated and which is to be paid to the persons who have secured the gold medal. The amount payable towards gold medal allowance shall be calculated for the applicable period and shall be paid to the respondent. The amount shall be paid within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. 16. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed in part. The impugned order is modified to the said extent by - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26329 WP No. 5015 of 2020 declining other monitory benefits granted in terms of the impugned order. 17. The petitioner shall calculate the gold medal allowance payable and shall pay the same to the respondent within 30 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE CHS/GVP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55