- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40340-DB WA No. 208 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT APPEAL NO. 208 OF 2024 (L-PG) BETWEEN: 1. SRI VITTAL RAI M V S/O AKKARI RAI AGE ABOUT 75 YEARS RESIDENT OF ASHOKA NILAYA DEVINAGAR, KAYYAR VILLAGE MADAVA POST, PUTTUR TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574201 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. NAGARAJAPPA A., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION MANGALORE DIVISION MANGALORE - 5750001 BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER 2. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY (UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT) MANGALORE DIVISION MANGALORE - 575001 Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40340-DB WA No. 208 of 2024 3. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, MANGALORE DIVISION MANGALORE - 575001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RENUKA H R., ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI. MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH, AGA FOR R-2 & R-3) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No-1735/2018 DISPOSED OF ON 03.10.2023 AND ALLOW THE APPEAL ACCORDINGLY IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) The present writ appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 03.10.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.1735/2018. 2. The appellant was appointed as badli conductor on temporary basis with effect from 22.12.1974. He - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40340-DB WA No. 208 of 2024 worked till 21.12.1975. During this period, the appellant worked only for a period of 164 days and he was removed from service as badli conductor vide order dated 18.07.1978. 3. On 27.10.1980, the appellant was appointed as probationer and he attained the age of superannuation on 31.05.2008. He filed an application claiming difference in gratuity before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 on 03.05.2014. The Controlling Authority, vide order dated 17.06.2016 determined the difference in gratuity and directed the respondent - Corporation to pay the same. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Controlling Authority, the respondent - Corporation preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority, by the order dated 30.08.2017, allowed the appeal in part. The writ petition was filed by the Corporation questioning the orders passed by the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40340-DB WA No. 208 of 2024 4. Learned Single Judge, vide impugned judgment and order, has held that the application filed by the petitioner before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act claiming difference in gratuity suffered from delay and laches. There was an inordinate delay of six years in filing the application and therefore, the application was liable to be rejected on the said ground alone and therefore, the writ petition came to be allowed. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, submits that the payment of gratuity is continuous cause of action. The appellant is a workman with the respondent - Corporation and payment of gratuity was his legal right which was wrongly denied to him inasmuch as the gratuity for the period 1974-1980 was not paid to him. Therefore, he was entitled to receive the difference in the gratuity amount as claimed by him and the Controlling Authority - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40340-DB WA No. 208 of 2024 and Appellate Authority have rightly adjudicated the claim and allowed in favour of the appellant. 6. On the other hand, Smt. H R Renuka, learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation submits that the appellant was not entitled for any payment of gratuity for the period from 1974 to 1980 in the facts of the case inasmuch as the appellant had worked as badli conductor during this period for 164 days only and he was not in regular employment. On 27.10.1980, it was his fresh appointment as a probationer and he was not legally entitled for payment of gratuity for the period from 1974 to 1980 when he was only badli conductor for 164 days. Even otherwise, the application filed by the appellant was barred by limitation as the application was filed after delay of six years. 7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced, we do not find any error of law to interfere with the impugned order - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40340-DB WA No. 208 of 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands dismissed. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE RKA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31