- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8264 WP No. 64585 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 64585 OF 2016 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: T. G. SOMAIAH, S/O. LATE GUNDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT "ANJANADRI NILAYA", 3RD MAIN, BEHIND SHARADA SAW MILL, BATAWADI, TUMKUR-572 103. (BENEFIT OF SENIOR CITIZENSHIP NOT CLAIMED) …PETITIONER (BY SRI M C BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER, AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY, REGION-II, KARMIKA BHAVANA, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 026. 2. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND CONTROLLING AUTHORITY, UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, DIVISION-I, KARMIKA BHAVANA, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 026. 3. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC, TUMKUR DIVISION, TUMKUR-572 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1 AND R2, SMT H R RENUKA, ADVOCATE FOR R3) Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8264 WP No. 64585 of 2016 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 11.11.2011 VIDE ANNX-B TO THIS W.P. PASSED BY THE R-2 AND ORDER DTD 23.04.2015 VIDE ANNX-C TO THIS W.P. PASSED BY THE R-1 IN SO FAR AS DENIAL OF THE DIFFERENCE OF THE GRATUITY FOR THE BADLI PERIOD FROM 10.11.1971 TO 17.01.1975 IS CONCERNED. 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 This petition is filed assailing the order dated 11.11.2011. passed by the Controlling Authority/Assistant Labour Commissioner under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The petitioner's claim for gratuity from 10.11.1971 to 18.01.1975 is denied, as such the petitioner seeks payment of gratuity by taking the said period into reckoning while computing the gratuity payable. 2. The Controlling Authority has partly allowed the claim and directed payment of Rs.43,564/- towards arrears of gratuity and the petitioner is aggrieved by the order rejecting the claim. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8264 WP No. 64585 of 2016 3. In terms of the impugned order, the Controlling Authority has directed payment of Rs.43,564/-, towards certain period which was excluded by the respondent-Corporation. However, the petitioner's claim for payment of gratuity from 10.11.1971 to 18.01.1975 is excluded on the premise that there are no records to show that the petitioner worked for the aforementioned period. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would urge that the fact that the petitioner was appointed on 10.11.1971 is very much established and same is also the finding recorded by the Controlling Authority and then he was put on probation in the year 1975 and later he was made as a permanent employee is also very much established as the said fact was not in dispute and that being the position, the Controlling Authority ought to have held that the petitioner worked from 10.11.1971 till 18.01.1975 when he was put on probation. Thus, it is urged that the exclusion of the aforementioned period from 10.11.1971 to 18.01.1975 is contrary to law. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8264 WP No. 64585 of 2016 5. Learned counsel would urge that the respondent- Corporation ought to have produced the records relating to the petitioner's service from 10.11.1971 till 18.01.1975 i.e., the date on which the petitioner was brought on probation and the respondent-Corporation being the custodian of the documents, has not produced the record, as such, adverse inference has to be drawn against the respondent - Corporation. 6. It is also urged by the learned counsel for petitioner that the Controlling Authority has held that the petitioner has worked for 2 years between 1971 to 1975 and it could not have denied gratuity for the aforementioned 2 years. 7. In support of his contention that the burden is on the respondent-Corporation, learned counsel for the petitioner would also refer to the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Bengaluru Metropolitan Transport Corporation vs. The Deputy Labour Commissioner and others1. 1 ILR 2009 KAR 405 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8264 WP No. 64585 of 2016 8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent, defending the impugned orders, namely the order passed by the Controlling Authority as well as the Appellate Authority, would urge that, both authorities have rightly concluded that the petitioner has not made out a case to claim gratuity between 1971 to 1975 as there are no records to show that the petitioner continuously worked during the aforementioned period. 9. In addition, it is also urged that the service records are produced to show that the petitioner was brought on probation in the year 1975 and though he was appointed in the year 1971 as a Badli Conductor. The Badli Conductors were not on duty on daily basis, their services were availed only when the regular Conductors were not on duty. Thus, it is urged that no adverse inference against the respondent -Corporation can be drawn as the Corporation has produced all the records which are available with it in respect of the petitioner's services. 10. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and produced the records. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8264 WP No. 64585 of 2016 11. Admittedly, the Controlling Authority has passed an order directing payment of Rs.43,564/- towards arrears of gratuity by overruling the objection filed by the respondent - Corporation which has denied the payment of gratuity for certain period. Said order is called in question by the petitioner and the Corporation has accepted the said order and the Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by Controlling Authority. 12. There is no dispute that Rs.43,564/- is paid by the respondent-Corporation. Now the question is whether the petitioner is able to establish that he was working as Badli Conductor from 10.11.1971 to 18.01.1975. 13. Annexure-A, the appointment order would indicate that the petitioner joined as Badli Conductor on 10.11.1971. 14. It is not the case of the petitioner that before 1975, he was brought on probation. He also admits that he was working as a Badli Conductor from 1971. Annexure-P7 is the document produced by the petitioner. The said document is dated 29.11.1971. This document furnishes the details of the temporary employees appointed by the Corporation and also - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8264 WP No. 64585 of 2016 discloses the details of the places and the dates on which they worked as temporary employees. The petitioner is said to have worked between 10.11.1971 to 09.02.1972 in depot No.II. 15. The document as already noted is dated 29.11.1971. It does not indicate that the petitioner worked beyond 09.07.1972. The Annexure-P8 is the copy of the service record pertaining to the petitioner. This would also indicate that the petitioner joined as probationer in the year 1975. 16. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner would urge by referring to the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Bengaluru Metropolitan Transport Corporation (supra) that the burden is on the respondent- Corporation to produce the records. The Court is of the view that the records have been produced by the respondent- Corporation and more importantly the entire service book is placed on record. Apart from that, the petitioner himself has produced the record which is already referred to i.e., Exhibit P7. It only speaks about the petitioner working from 10.11.1971 to 09.02.1972. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8264 WP No. 64585 of 2016 17. This being the position, it cannot be said that the respondent-Corporation has withheld the records after November-1971. That is not the case of the petitioner. Hence, the contention that adverse inference has to be drawn against the respondent -Corporation cannot be accepted. 18. The Court is of the view that no case is made out to draw adverse inference. In the judgment referred to above, it was a case where no records were produced by the respondent- Corporation. 19. Though learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that the Controlling Authority has come to the conclusion that the petitioner has worked for 2 years between 1971 to 1975, the records do not indicate that he worked for 2 years during the aforementioned period. The records would indicate that he worked only for 2 months between 10.11.1971 to 09.02.1972. 20. Having recorded the aforementioned finding, the Controlling Authority has rejected the claim to the extent referred to above and Appellate Authority has also confirmed the said order. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8264 WP No. 64585 of 2016 21. It is also noticed from the service records that between 1972 to 1975 the petitioner has worked as Badli employee for a couple of months. However, even if those days are added, on which the petitioner has worked as Badli employee, it does not add up to 240 days, which is the requirement under the law. 22. That being the position, the Court is of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief, as no infirmity can be found in the impugned orders. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the aforementioned orders. 23. Accordingly the Writ Petition is dismissed. 24. Registry to return the original records to the learned Government Advocate. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE GVP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27