- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35854 WP No. 31528 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 31528 OF 2024 (L-PG) BETWEEN: SYED NAZEER, S/O. LATE SYED ABDUL JABBAR, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.883, FCI NEAR RAMASWAMY LAYOUT, VIJINAPURA, BENGALURU-560 016. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRINIVASA K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT AND THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER, DIVISION-3, KARMIKA BHAVAN, BANNERUGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 029. 2. THE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT AND LABOUR OFFICER, SUB DIVISION -3, KARMIKA BHAVAN, BANNERUGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 029. 3. SRI. R.N.SATHISH, PROPRIETOR, M/S. BHARATH DIE CAST NO. A4, NGEF ANCILLARY, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35854 WP No. 31528 of 2024 MAHADEVAPURA, BENGALURU-560 048. 4. SMT. RANI SATHISH, W/O. R.N.SATHISH, GPA HOLDER, M/S. PRADHAN UDYOG INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, MAHADEVAPURA, BENGALURU-560 048. RESPONDENTS NO. 3 AND 4 ARE R/AT NO.3412, 10TH MAIN ROAD, 2ND CROSS, 2ND STAGE, INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 038. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.P.YOGANNA, A.G.A., FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. K.R.ANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R4) 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 Sri.Srinivasa.K., counsel for the petitioner; Sri.K.P.Yoganna., Additional Government Advocate for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri.K.R.Anand., counsel for respondents 3 and 4, have appeared in person. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35854 WP No. 31528 of 2024 2. The short facts are these: The respondent unit, NGEF, was closed in 1998. Following the closure of the Ancillary Unit, settlements were effected, including in respect of the petitioner. However, after a lapse of several years, the petitioner approached the Controlling Authority in 2018. The Controlling Authority, by order dated 10.08.2022, dismissed the application on the ground of delay, which was not condoned. An appeal was thereafter preferred before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority, by order dated 22.04.2024, confirmed the order of the Controlling Authority. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court. 3. Counsel for the respective parties advanced several contentions. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the assertion of respondents 3 and 4 that the unit was closed in 1998 is factually incorrect. It was submitted that the closure occurred only in 2007. It was further urged that the petitioner had been diligently prosecuting his remedies before the Labor - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35854 WP No. 31528 of 2024 Court concerning the closure of the establishment and consequential service benefits, and that such proceedings came to be dismissed by order dated 02.12.2017. Attention was drawn to paragraph 17 of the award of the Labor Court to contended that liberty was accorded to approach the appropriate forum. On that basis, the petitioner filed an application before the Controlling Authority. Lastly, it was argued that the orders of the gratuity authorities are illegal and liable to be quashed. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, justified the orders of the gratuity authorities. It was contended that there was an inordinate delay in filing the claim, and the authorities were fully justified in rejecting it. Accordingly, it was submitted that the writ petition is devoid of merit and liable to dismissed. 4. The Court has heard the arguments and carefully perused the records. 5. The following points would arise for determination. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35854 WP No. 31528 of 2024 1. Whether the petitioner’s claim before the Controlling Authority was barred by delay and rightly rejected. 2. Whether the Labor Court, in its order dated 02.12.2017, granted the liberty. 3. Whether the orders of the gratuity authorities suffer from illegality, warranting interference by this Court. 6. The facts are sufficiently stated and need no repetition. The issue lies within a narrow compass. The NGEF unit was closed, and settlements were effected. The only dispute relates to the petitioner’s delayed approach before the gratuity authorities. It is recorded that the petitioner has moved an application seeking condonation of delay, asserting that he had submitted several representations which yielded no result. It is further stated that the company ceased operations in the year 2007. Before this Court, in addition to reiterating the aforesaid grounds, an additional submission has been advanced regarding the liberty granted by the Labor Court to approach the appropriate forum. However, there is no material placed on record to establish that such representations were in fact made - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35854 WP No. 31528 of 2024 or that they remained pending. Consequently, the said contention cannot be sustained. The petitioner’s plea that the Labor Court granted the liberty is unsustainable, as a careful reading of the order dated 02.12.2017 reveals no such liberty. Consequently, the foundation of the petitioner’s claim fails. Even if the petitioner’s assertion regarding the company's closure in 2007 is accepted, the present application was not filed until 2018, thereby occasioning an inordinate delay of nearly eleven years. Moreover, reckoning the period of delay from the date of the actual closure, the lapse extends to twenty years. It is pertinent to note that Rule 10 of Payment of Gratuity (Central) Rules, 1972 and Rule 10 of Karnataka Payment of Gratuity Rules, 1973 prescribe a time frame of 90 days to file an application claiming a 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35854 WP No. 31528 of 2024 It is evident that only upon the dismissal of the application under Section 33C(2), the petitioner, by way of a subsequent attempt, sought to invoke the jurisdiction of the Controlling Authority by filing an application therein. The Controlling Authority, upon detailed consideration of the material, rightly rejected the application. The Appellate Authority, in turn, correctly affirmed the rejection. No illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error is shown in the orders impugned. 7. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no grounds to interfere with the orders of the gratuity authorities. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Because of dismissal of the Writ Petition, the interim order granted, if any, stands discharged and pending interlocutory applications, if any are disposed of. Sd/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45