Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation vs The Deputy Labour Commissioner and the Appellate Authority

Ram Mohan Reddy, J.—Petitioner-Corporation has called in question the orders dated 5-10-2009 Annexure-A of the Controlling Authority and 7-3-2011 Annexure-B of the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short, ''Act''), insofar as it relates to:

"(a) reckoning the total years of completed service as 19 years 7 months instead of 18 years and one month.

(b) determining gratuity at Rs. 97,858/- as against Rs. 90,362/-.

(c) interest at 10% p.a. from 31-7-1996 instead of at 6% from 7-3-2007."

Respondents, though served are absent and unrepresented. There is no opposition to this petition.

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, perused the pleadings and examined the orders impugned.

The 3rd respondent-ex-employee of the petitioner-organisation having retired from service on 30-6-1996 and received the gratuity amount of Rs. 64,397/-, nevertheless, in the year 2006, filed a claim petition for redetermination of the gratuity on the premise that he was entitled to much more amount. The Controlling Authority before whom petitioner, when arraigned as respondent, entered appearance on notice and resisted the claim petition, nevertheless, reckoned 19 years and 7 months as active service rendered by the 3rd respondent though 1 year and 5 months was the period of break in service which could not be included in the total service rendered, more appropriately, when the 3rd respondent was on badly list. Therefore, the total years of continuous service rendered by the 3rd respondent was 18 years and 1 month commencing from 13-11-1976 to 30-6-1996.

In view of the decision of this Court in Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation v. The Deputy Labour Commissioner and Others, rendered in W.P. No. 8941 of 2011, disposed of on 1-7-2011, stating that the workman who approached the Controlling Authority under the Act, belatedly beyond ten years are disentitled to claim the benefit of reckoning as continuers service the period of service rendered as ''badly employees'' and break in service, since the records may not be available with the petitioner-Corporation, for the very same reasons, the first submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner deserves acceptance. Service rendered by 3rd respondent is reckoned as 18 years 1 month.

If the 3rd respondent served the petitioner for 18 years 1 month, the gratuity is Rs. 90,362/- while what was paid was Rs. 64,397/-. Since it is only after the decision of the Apex Court in Management of KSRTC th. Chief Law Officer Vs. R. Krishna Reddy, , rendered the Corporation liable to re-determination of gratuity and pay higher gratuity to the 3rd respondent.

The Division Bench of this Court in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. H.B. Amar Singh in W.A. No. 8941 of 2011, disposed of on 9-3-2010 (sic), observed that in all cases of redetermination of the gratuity on the basis of R. Krishna Reddy''s case, interest payable is 6% per annum from 7-3-2007 on the difference of gratuity. For the very same reasons, submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner that interest ought to be at 6% p.a. from 7-3-2007 deservers acceptance.

In the result, this petition is allowed in part. The orders of the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority are modified, entitling the 3rd respondent-workman, to difference of gratuity of Rs. 25,965/- (Rs. 90,362/- - Rs. 64,397/-) with interest at 6% p.a. from 7-3-2007 until payment and in all other respects, remains unaltered. The amount in deposit is directed to be made over to the workman to the extent noticed supra and the balance amount refunded to the petitioner. The amount of Rs. 3,000/- in deposit by way of litigation cost payable to the 3rd respondent pursuant to the order dated 22-4-2013 is directed to be forwarded to the Controlling Authority concerned for disbursement to the workman.