- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18598-DB WA No. 701 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT APPEAL NO. 701 OF 2025 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: LINGAMADEGOWDADA, S/O BHUJANGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT YEARS, R/AT NO. 137, KOMMAGHATTA, KHB LAYOUT, BANDEMATA, KENGERI, BENGALURU - 560 060. &APPELLANT (BY SRI. HALLUR SHIVAYOGI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REGIONAL WORK SHOP, KENGERI, BENGALURU - 560 060. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER. 2. ASST. LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY, UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18598-DB WA No. 701 of 2025 SUB-DIVISION-2, KARMIKA BHAVAN, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 029. 3. ASST. LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND CONTROLLING AUTHORITY, UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, SUB-DIVISION-2, KARMIKA BHAVAN, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 020. &RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RENUKA H.R., ADVOCATE FOR R1, SRI. M.N. SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R2 & R3) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM RESPONDENT No. 3 HEREIN AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:11.02.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No.12297/2024 (L-KSRTC) AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF) The employee - respondent No.3 in W.P.No.12297/2024 is before us in this appeal filed under - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18598-DB WA No. 701 of 2025 Section 4 of Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, challenging the order dated 11.02.2025 passed by the Writ Court. The Writ Court under the impugned order allowed the petition and set aside the orders dated 16.11.2022 (Annexure-C) and 14.09.2023 (Annexure-E) passed by respondent No.2 and respondent No.1 respectively. 2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Writ Court. 3. Brief facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as under: 4. It is the claim of third respondent that he joined the service as a Welder with KIMCO in the year 1981. On 01.10.1986, the KIMCO was merged with KSRTC subject to terms and conditions of merger. Consequently, the employees of KIMCO came to be absorbed in the Corporation as per the terms and conditions of Government Order. A separate agreement was entered on 17.04.1999 in respect of gratuity under a Tripartite - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18598-DB WA No. 701 of 2025 Settlement entered between the employees of KIMCO, Union and Management. As per the terms of settlement, the erstwhile employees of KIMCO are to be paid gratuity in terms of the Payment of Gratuity Act1. 5. The third respondent retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.00.2018. His gratuity amount payable to him was calculated in terms of the PG Act for the period of service rendered by him, i.e., for a period of 38 years as per the following calculation: Basic Pay - Rs.29,670/- DA - Rs.13,245/- Addl. DA - Rs.751/- Total - Rs.43,666/- Rs.43,666/- X 15/26 X 38 years = Rs.9,57,293/- 6. The said amount was paid in two installments; first installment for Rs.9,44,797/- and second installment for Rs.12,496/-. 1 the PG Act, for short - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18598-DB WA No. 701 of 2025 7. After a period of three years, respondent No.3 filed an application in the year 2021 claiming difference in gratuity before the Controlling Authority2 in the year 2021. Vide, the order dated 16.11.2022, the CA condoned the delay and allowed the application granting the relief sought therein. The petitioner Corporation unsuccessfully carried the order in appeal before the Appellate Authority. These two orders were called in question before the Writ Court in W.P.No.12297/2024. 8. The Writ Court considering the fact that respondent No.3 retired in the year 2018 and received the entire gratuity amount under the PG act without any demur in 2018 itself, and thereafter, almost lapse of three years, moved an application before the CA seeking difference in gratuity, the CA notwithstanding the delay, allowed the application. Further, the Writ Court observing the terms of settlement which reads as under: 2 the CA, for short - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18598-DB WA No. 701 of 2025 "1. The representatives of the Management of KSRTC., and the representatives of KSRTC Pradheshika Karyagara Karmikra Sangha, Hassan, agree for regulating the payment of Gratuity to the absorbed employees of the erstwhile KIMCO in accordance with the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. 2. This will be implemented from the date of absorption of KIMCO employees into the services of KSRTC., i.e., 01.10.1996, also taking into account, this service rendered in the erstwhile KIMCO. 3. Therefore, for the purpose of Payment of Gratuity to the employees of erstwhile KIMCO who were absorbed into the services of KSRTC as on 01.10.1996, they will no longer be governed by the Memorandum of Settlement dated:03.04.1996, Clause 16, but by this settlement dated:17.04.1999." held that the attempt by respondent No.3 to contend that he has been transferred to the Corporation as such he should be treated as an employee of the Corporation and he is entitled to claim gratuity as per the Regulations of the Corporation, which acceded to by both the respondents, denied to be countenanced by the Writ Court. The reason apparently stated by the Writ Court is that the respondent No.3 became the employee of the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18598-DB WA No. 701 of 2025 KSRTC in terms of the Notification issued during the merger of KIMCO with the KSRTC. This aspect of the matter has been overlooked by the authorities under the PG Act. 9. The Writ Court having found that the reference regarding non-applicability of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 03.04.1996 and the applicability of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 17.04.1999 indeed contended by the Corporation before the authorities and despite the said objection, the authorities erroneously went ahead with the matter and granted the relief calculating the gratuity in terms of the Regulations of the Corporation declining to accept the contention of the employee as to no such stand taken before the authorities under the P.G Act. The Writ Court also observed that, this Court in W.P.No.19477/2003 has already decided the issue in a similar matter involving the employee of KIMCO subsequently absorbed in KSRTC under the G.O and Agreement thereafter. Having stated so, the Writ Court - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18598-DB WA No. 701 of 2025 concluded that since the service of respondent No.3 was absorbed into the Corporation because of merger, he is bound by the Settlement dated 17.04.1999, as such the determination of the gratuity by the CA is contrary to the said Memorandum of Settlement dated 17.04.1999 and also the decision of this court in the earlier Writ Petition supra. Accordingly, allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the orders impugned. It is this order passed by the Writ Court is called in question in this appeal. 10. Heard, Sri.Hallur Shivayogi, learned counsel appearing for appellant, Smt.Renuka.H.R, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri.M.N.Sudev Hegde, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.3. 11. Sri.Hallur Shivayogi, reiterated more or less the very same contentions taken before the Writ Court. The contentions urged in the Writ Appeal in grounds cannot be permitted to be allowed for the simple reason that the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18598-DB WA No. 701 of 2025 contention that no opportunity has been availed to respondent No.3 to file detailed objections on the new ground taken, producing the Memorandum of Settlement dated 17.04.1999, so also that he had taken NOC vakalath from the previous counsel and the Writ Court not permitted the counsel on NOC vakalath and directed the previous counsel to address the arguments and further that the Writ Court has not considered the Memorandum of Settlement dated 03.04.1996. 12. It is not in dispute that subsequently there was a separate agreement on 17.04.1999, wherein certain rights have been created with a specific Clause, more particularly Number 3, which we have already extracted above, stating that for the purpose of payment of gratuity to the employees of erstwhile KIMCO, who are absorbed in the services of the KSRTC as on 01.10.1996, will no longer be governed by the Memorandum of Settlement dated 03.04.1996, Clause 16, but by the Settlement dated 17.04.1999. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18598-DB WA No. 701 of 2025 13. Respondent No.3 is very well aware of the Settlement of 1999 under which he has been granted rights to claim benefits which he has already received immediately after his superannuation long back in the year 2018 without any protest. This clearly shows the conduct of the employee that he having received the payment paid under the PG Act, now estopped from saying that he has to be treated as an employee of the Corporation from the inception and the Regulations of the Corporation are applicable for the purpose of calculation of gratuity amount which would be little higher than the amount which he has received. 14. We have gone through the entire appeal paper. We find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Writ Court, much less on the grounds urged in the appeal. The reason being the matter is no more res- integra as has already been decided by this Court way back in the year 2005 in W.P.No.19447/2005 (Annexure- B). In that view of the matter, the appeal fails and is - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18598-DB WA No. 701 of 2025 accordingly, dismissed. Given the facts and circumstances, no order as to costs. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16 ct-vn