- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29531 WP No. 22767 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 22767 OF 2021 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: THE CHIEF TRAFFIC MANAGER BMTC, CENTRAL OFFICE, EAST DIVISION, DOMMALURU, BENGALURU. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER, BMTC, CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. M.VENKATESHAPPA, S/O. MUNIYAPPA, R/AT NO.479, 1ST MAIN ROAD, ASHWATHNAGAR, MARATHALLI, BENGALURU-560 037. 2. ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972 DIVISION-4, ARMIKA BHAVAN, BENGALURU-560 029. 3. LABOUR OFFICER AND CONTROLLER, UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT 1972, Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29531 WP No. 22767 of 2021 SUB DIVISION-4, KARMIKA BHAVAN BENGALURU-560 029. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. MAMATHA SHETTY, AGA FOR R2 AND R3; R1 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 ORDERS, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.Hareesh Bhandary.T, counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Mamatha Shetty., Additional Government Advocate for respondents 2 and 3 have appeared in person. Emergent notice to the first respondent was ordered on 13.12.2021. A perusal of the office note depicts that the first respondent is served and unrepresented. The first respondent has neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as a party in person. 2. The brief facts are these: The first respondent joined the services of the Corporation on 22.08.1990. He came under disciplinary - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29531 WP No. 22767 of 2021 proceedings alleging that he had produced a fake TC. Inquiry was conducted and order of punishment was passed and he was removed from service on 23.08.2004. Aggrieved, by the same, he raised a dispute in I.D.No.55/2006. The Labour Court vide award dated 15.04.2009 passed the order of reinstatement with 50% back wages. The Corporation assailed the same before this Court in Writ Petition No.29409/2009 and first respondent also filed a Writ Petition No.11793/2010. During the pendency of the writ petition, the respondent was reinstated subject to the result of the writ petition. The writ petitions were disposed of on 29.03.2021. After remand, the Labour Court confirmed the order of dismissal and the first respondent filed a writ petition in No.23179/2012 and this Court vide order dated:30.07.2012 confirmed the order of dismissal. As the matter stood thus, he filed application seeking difference in gratuity on 15.12.2014 before the Controlling Authority. The Controlling Authority vide order dated:22.07.2019 determined the difference in gratuity and directed the Corporation to pay the same. Aggrieved by the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29531 WP No. 22767 of 2021 order of the Controlling Authority, an appeal was preferred before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority vide order dated:24.05.2021 confirmed the order of the Controlling Authority. The orders of the 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 has urged several contentions. Counsel for the petitioner in presenting his arguments on instructions submits that the first respondent was removed from service at the first instance and the service benefits were settled. Moreover, the order of dismissal was confirmed by this Court on 30.07.2012. However, he made application before the Controlling Authority seeking difference in gratuity on 15.12.2014. It is also submitted on behalf of the Corporation that the Controlling Authority erred in entertaining the application. He argued by saying that there is an inordinate delay of almost two years in filing the application claiming difference in - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29531 WP No. 22767 of 2021 gratuity. Therefore, he submits that the orders of the Gratuity Authorities are liable to be set-aside. 4. Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner and perused the Writ papers with utmost care. 5. 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? 6. 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. 7. Reverting to the facts of the case, the order of dismissal of the first respondent was confirmed by this Court on 30.07.2012. He filed an application claiming difference in gratuity on 15.12.2014. The first respondent filed an application seeking condonation of delay contending that he - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29531 WP No. 22767 of 2021 had requested the Corporation to pay difference in gratuity on several occasions, but the Corporation did not respond to his request, hence there is a delay in filing the application. The Corporation filed a detail statement of objections and prayed for the dismissal of the application on the grounds of delay and laches. The Controlling Authority condoned the delay on the ground that the Payment of Gratuity Act is a beneficial legislation and the denial of the gratuity would cause prejudice and injustice to the workman. This is incorrect. The reason is apparent. The applicant was not diligent in approaching the Authority well in time. Hence, the Controlling Authority ought to have considered the financial repercussions on the Corporation. Hence, the reason assigned by the Controlling Authority to condone the delay is unsustainable in law. As already noted above, the order of dismissal of the first respondent was confirmed by this Court on 30.07.2012. However, he filed an application claiming difference in gratuity on 15.12.2014. There is an inordinate delay of almost two years. Therefore, in my view, the application is liable to be rejected on the grounds of delay and laches and is rejected. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29531 WP No. 22767 of 2021 Since the application is rejected on the grounds of delay and laches, there is nothing to discuss on the merits of the case. For the reasons stated above, the orders of the Gratuity Authorities are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, it is quashed. 8. The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The order dated:22.07.2019 passed by the Controlling Authority vide Annexure-B and the order dated:24.05.2021 passed by the Appellate Authority vide Annexure-A are quashed. 9. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed. In view of disposal of the Writ Petition, amount in deposit if any is directed to be released/ refunded in favor of the Corporation. SD/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35