- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3130 WP No. 20384 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 20384 OF 2025 (L-PG) BETWEEN: BMS HOSPITAL AND NURSING COLLEGE NO.618, SRI. MALLIKARJUN SWAMY TEMPLE ROAD N.R.COLONY, BENGALURU-560019, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SIVARAMAN.P, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS. …PETITIONER (BY SRI VISHWANATH KANAVI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. CONTROLLING AUTHORITY CUM LABOUR OFFICER, UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, SUB-DIVISION 7, KARMIKA- BHAVAN, BANNERGHATA ROAD, BENGALURU-560029. 2. MAHESH NAIK, S/O GOPI NAIK, AMMANPURA, AVERHALLI POST, RAMNAGAR TALUK, RAMNAGAR DISTRICT- 562159. 3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, 1ST FLOOR, KANDAYA BHAVAN, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560009. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MAHESH NAIK - PARTY-IN-PERSON FOR R2, SRI M RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1 AND R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3130 WP No. 20384 of 2025 WRIT TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 10.02.2025 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 LABOUR OFFICER CUM CONTROLLING AUTHORITY SUB-DIVISION-7, BENGALURU IN CASE NO. KAABEN-7/PGA/CR-55/2023-2024 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the party-in-person/respondent. 2. This petition is filed assailing the order dated 10.02.2025 passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. 3. In terms of the said order, the Controlling Authority has directed the petitioner to pay ₹1,80,000/- to the respondent towards gratuity. And also directed 10% interest on the amount payable. The petitioner is before this Court on the premise that notice is not served on the petitioner. 4. To substantiate the contention, learned counsel would refer to the order sheet at Annexure-C dated - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3130 WP No. 20384 of 2025 24.08.2023. It is noticed from the said order that the concerned case worker has placed the papers before the Controlling Authority for issuance of notice to the present petitioner. However, the order sheet does not indicate that on 24.08.2023, order is passed for issuance of notice. The case was listed on 04.09.2023. On that day, the Presiding Officer was not present. Accordingly, the case was adjourned to 27.09.2023. 5. Later, the remaining portion of the order sheet would not indicate that the notice to the petitioner is served. Thus, it is urged that the impugned order is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and though the petitioner made an attempt to file an appeal on gaining the knowledge about the impugned order, the appeal was not entertained on the premise that it is sought to be filed beyond 120 days from the date of the order. 6. The respondent/party-in-person would submit that the notice is duly served on the petitioner and he would invite - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3130 WP No. 20384 of 2025 the attention of the Court to the notice dated 24.08.2023 marked at Annexure-C in the statement of objection. The said document would indicate that the notice is prepared on 24.08.2023 and date of hearing is fixed on 04.09.2023. Party- in-person would also invite the attention of the Court to the postal acknowledgment to support his contention that the notice is duly served on the petitioner. 7. The Court has perused the acknowledgment. The first page of the acknowledgment would indicate that the notice is served on the petitioner on 22.09.2023. The second page relating to the date of the postal stamp would indicate that it is dated 04.09.2023. Thus, the inference that can be drawn is the notice is served on 22.09.2023. However, the date of hearing was 04.09.2023. Since the notice is not served on the date fixed for hearing or any day earlier to the hearing, the Court is of the view that the notice is not duly served. 8. Apart from that, it is also noticed that there is no - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3130 WP No. 20384 of 2025 order for issuance of notice and there is no order regarding service of notice. Under these circumstances, the Court is of the view that the impugned order is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Hence, the impugned order has to be set aside and the matter has to be remitted to the Controlling Authority/respondent No.1 under the Payment of Gratuity Act for fresh consideration. Hence, the following:- ORDER (i) Petition is allowed-in-part. (ii) The impugned order dated order dated 10.02.2025 passed by the respondent No.1/Controlling Authority is set aside. (iii) The matter is remitted to the Controlling Authority/respondent No.1 under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 for fresh consideration. (vi) The Controlling Authority shall afford an opportunity to both parties to advance their contentions. Then, after considering the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3130 WP No. 20384 of 2025 contentions of both the parties, the Controlling Authority shall pass appropriate orders. (v) Both parties shall appear before the Controlling Authority on 29.01.2026 without any further notice. (vi) The Controlling Authority shall decide the case within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 4. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the matter. 5. All contentions of the parties are kept open. 6. Pending application, if any, does not survive for consideration. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE CHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43