- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43047 WP No. 14704 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 14704 OF 2020 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION TUMKUR DIVISION, TUMKUR BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. H.R.RENUKA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, DIVISION-1, KARMEEKA BHAVAN, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 029. 2. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, TUMKUR SUB-DIVISION TUMKUR - 572 137. 3. 3(A) NARASIMHAIAH S/O LATE HALAPPA SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HIS LR RANGATHAYI W/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH Digitally signed by THEJAS KUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43047 WP No. 14704 of 2020 MAJOR IN AGE R/O GOWDAGERE VILLAGE AND POST, SIRA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 137. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAJENDRA K.R., AGA FOR R1 AND R2; R3(A) SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Smt.H.R.Renuka., counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Rajendra.K.R., AGA for respondents 1 & 2 have appeared in person. The third respondent Narasimhaiah died during the pendency of the Writ Petition. Hence, his legal representative was brought on record as respondent No.3(a). She has received the notice, however, she has neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as a party in person. 2. The short facts are these: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43047 WP No. 14704 of 2020 The third respondent since deceased Sri.Narasimhaiah was appointed as a Conductor in the establishment of the Corporation in 1983. He sought voluntary retirement on 11.01.2013. The period of service rendered by the third respondent for the purpose of payment of gratuity was calculated as under: YEARS MONTHS DAYS Total number of years of service Break in service 29 06 08 04 09 25 Total 23 03 14 Gratuity was calculated as under in terms of Regulation: Rs.16,640 X 23.3 years = Rs.3,86,880/- The Corporation paid the gratuity to the workman. However, the third respondent moved an application before the Controlling Authority claiming difference in gratuity on 22.04.2015. The Controlling Authority vide order dated 28.05.2018 allowed the application. Aggrieved by the order - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43047 WP No. 14704 of 2020 of the Controlling Authority, the Corporation preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority vide order dated 15.10.2019 dismissed the appeal. The orders of Gratuity Authorities are called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition. 3. Counsel for the petitioner and AGA urged several contentions. Smt.H.R.Renuka., counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation in presenting her arguments vehemently contended that the Controlling Authority erred in entertaining the application. She argued by saying that there is an inordinate delay of almost two years three months in filing the application claiming difference in gratuity. Therefore, she submits that the orders of the Gratuity Authorities are liable to be set-aside. AGA justified the orders of the Gratuity Authorities and submits that an appropriate order may be passed. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43047 WP No. 14704 of 2020 Heard, the arguments and perused the Writ papers with utmost care. 4. The point that requires consideration is whether the Controlling Authority is justified in entertaining the application claiming difference in gratuity beyond the period of limitation? 5. It is pertinent to note that Rule 10 of Payment of Gratuity (Central) Rules, 1972 and also Rule 10 of Karnataka Payment of Gratuity Rules, 1973 prescribes a time frame of 90 days to file an application claiming difference in gratuity. If the application is filed beyond 90 days, the Controlling Authority may accept the application on sufficient cause being shown by the applicant after the expiry of the specified period. Reverting to the facts of the case, the workman opted voluntary retirement and retired from service on 11.01.2013. He filed an application claiming difference in gratuity on 22.04.2015. The applicant sought for condonation of delay. The Corporation filed a detail statement of objections. The - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43047 WP No. 14704 of 2020 Controlling Authority condoned the delay on the ground that the third respondent had approached the Corporation claiming difference in gratuity, however the Corporation did not respond to his request. The reasons assigned to condone the delay is unsustainable in law. The reason is apparent. The law contemplates that the application must be filed within 90 days. However, the workman has not filed the application well in time. The Controlling Authority ought to have considered the financial repercussions on the Corporation. As already noted above, the workman voluntarily retired from service on 11.01.2013. However, he filed an application on 22.04.2015. There is an inordinate delay of two years and three months. Therefore, in my view, the application filed by the workman is liable to be rejected on the grounds of delay and laches. Accordingly, it is rejected. For the reasons stated above, the orders of the Gratuity Authorities are liable to be set-aside. Accordingly, they are set-aside. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43047 WP No. 14704 of 2020 6. The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The order dated:28.05.2018 passed by the Controlling Authority vide Annexure-B and the order dated:15.10.2019 passed by the Appellate Authority vide Annexure-D are quashed. 7. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Because of disposal of the Writ Petition, pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of, interim direction if any stands discharged and amount in deposit, if any, is directed to be released/ refunded in favor of the Corporation. SD/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE MRP,KMV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15