- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34066 WP No. 22785 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO.22785 OF 2021 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: ANANTHA PADMANABHA RAO T.R S/O LATE T.N. RAMAKRISHNA RAO AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/A #15/26, 7TH MAIN, 3RD PHASE, 5TH BLOCK, 3RD STAGE, BSK BANGALORE SOUTH BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE BANGALORE - 560 085. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. J.R.THIPPESWAMY, ADV.) AND: 1. THE CHIEF TRAFFIC MANAGER BMTC, CENTRAL OFFICES K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 027. Digitally signed by B LAVANYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34066 WP No. 22785 of 2021 2. THE LABOUR OFFICER AND THE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT SUB DIVISION - II, KARMIKA BHAVANA, BANNERGHATA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 026. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY.T., ADV. FOR R1; SRI. RAJENDRA.K.R., AGA FOR R2) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 31.08.2018 PASSED BY THE R2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A TO THIS WRIT PETITION IN SO FAR AS DENIAL OF INTEREST ON THE BELATED PAYMENT OF GRATUITY IS CONCERNED AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34066 WP No. 22785 of 2021 ORAL ORDER Heard Sri. J.R.Thippeswamy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Hareesh Bhandary.T., learned counsel for respondent No.1 as well as Sri. Rajendra.K.R., learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.2. 2. The present petition has been filed by the workmen who was appointed as a conductor with respondent No.1- Corporation and retired from service on 30.06.2016. It is a case of the petitioner that as on the date of retirement, he had put in more than 38 years 7 months and 29 days of continuous service with respondent No.1. At the time of retirement, he was working as an Assistant Traffic Inspector and his last drawn basic pay is Rs.33,540/- and Dearness Allowance was Rs.12,074/-. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that after retirement, petitioner was paid a sum of Rs.11,05,702/- as gratuity by respondent No.1 on 06.07.2017 taking into consideration his total service of 38 years 7 months 29 days. Out of which, one year was excluded towards break in service. It is contented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to Rs.13,52,780/- as - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34066 WP No. 22785 of 2021 gratuity by respondent No.1, out of which, a sum of Rs.11,05,702/- has been paid and balance amount of Rs.2,47,078/- is due, to be paid to him by respondent No.1- Corporation. He further contends that petitioner made several representations requesting the payment of gratuity amount but the same was not paid. Hence, the petitioner filed an application in PGA/CR No.175/2017 before the Labour Officer- Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, Sub Division-II at Bengaluru. Along with the main application, a separate application for condonation of delay was partly allowed and respondent No.1 was directed to pay Rs.2,47,078/- as difference of gratuity amount along with interest at 10% per annum but denied the interest on belated payment of gratuity. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is a denial of interest on the belated payment of gratuity and that the petitioner is undergoing old age health issues and suffering from financial difficulties, he also could not contact his counsel. Hence, there was a delay in approaching the Court. Therefore, the delay if any was unintentional and for bonafide reasons. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34066 WP No. 22785 of 2021 3. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that respondent No.2 passed the impugned order of denial of interest. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court challenging the order passed by respondent No.2 at Annexure-A. It is further contented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order does not discuss about the delay in payment of gratuity and the delay in paying the interest component to be paid for the delayed payment of the gratuity. It is further contended that there is a delay of one year in making the payment of gratuity and the issues with regard to belated payment of gratuity has not been considered and discussed while passing the impugned order. Hence, he seeks to quash the impugned order as it is not a reasoned order and the petitioner is entitled for payment of interest on belated gratuity amount in view of the Circular issued by the Central Government and so also as per Section 7(3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Therefore, he contends that the impugned order passed is liable to be set aside on the ground of denial of interest for belated payment of gratuity and that the petitioner is entitled to 10% interest per annum. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34066 WP No. 22785 of 2021 4. Per contra, Sri. Hareesh Bhandary, learned counsel for respondent No.1 sustains the impugned order contending that all contentions of the petitioner and respondents have been considered and reasoned order has been passed, which does not require interference, much less setting aside the impugned order. On these grounds, he seeks dismissal of the petition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsels for the respondents. 6. On careful perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that there is no proper discussions with regard to denial of interest for belated payment of gratuity. Therefore, it is necessary for the Controlling Authority-respondent No.2 to take into consideration these aspects of belated payment of interest of gratuity amount to the petitioner and consider the case afresh, hear learned counsel for both parties and pass fresh orders. Under the circumstances, I pass the following: ORDER (i) Petition is partly allowed. Impugned order dated 31.08.2018 at Annexure-A is set aside. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34066 WP No. 22785 of 2021 (ii) The respondent No.2 to reconsider the matter afresh only so far as the denial of interest on belated payment of gratuity is concerned. (iii) Hence, the matter is remitted to respondent No.2 to pass orders afresh. The same shall be done expeditiously by providing opportunity to both the parties. (iv) Respondent No.2 shall dispose of the matter within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE SMJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23