Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation vs The Deputy Labour Commissioner

Ram Mohan Reddy, J.—Petitioner-Public Road Transport Corporation aggrieved by the orders of the Controlling Authority and that of the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, has presented this petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner advances the following submissions:

(i) Respondent-workman though appointed as ''Badli conductor'' by letter dated 28-3-1979 -- Annexure-A, nevertheless was removed from services on 22-11-1980 and his name was entered in the ''Badli list'' with effect from 19-1-1990 following which he was placed on probation with effect from 27-9-1991 and retired from services on 30-6-2005, when he was paid the gratuity and other retirement benefits by reckoning the period of services from 27-9-1991 upto the date of retirement for the purpose of gratuity.

(ii) Respondent-workman filed claim petition on 2-2-2009, more than 3 1/2 years after retirement seeking redetermination of the gratuity on the ground that his name was in the ''Badli list'' with effect from 28-3-1979 and hence rendered continuous service, which was not reckoned by the employer.

(iii) That the respondent-workman suppressed material information over removal from services on 22-11-1980 and that subsequently his name was included in the ''Badli list'' on 19-1-1990, where afterwards he was brought on probation with effect from 27-9-1991.

(iv) That the petitioner-Corporation despite diligent search was unable to secure the records since the respondent-workman had filed the claim petition 3 1/2 years after his retirement hence unable to place relevant records to substantiate facts suppressed by the workman.

(v) Learned Counsel submits that, if an opportunity is extended, petitioner-Corporation would place the relevant material to sustain its contentions.

Respondent-workman though served and represented by Counsel is absent.

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate for respondents 1 and 2. Perused the pleadings, examined the orders impugned. The fact that the 3rd respondent-workman was in the ''Badli list'' from 28-3-1979 under Annexure-A, letter cannot be disputed. The other facts of removal from ''Badli List'' on 22-11-1980 and relisting in the Badli list on 19-1-1990 and thereafter brought on probation on 27-9-1991, are essentially to be placed before the authorities for a complete adjudication of the dispute brought before the authorities, in the absence of which is denial of justice as well as accountability of public revenue.

In the circumstances, ends of justice would be met by quashing the orders of the authorities and remanding the proceeding to the Controlling Authority to extend an opportunity of hearing to the parties, more appropriately to adduce evidence both oral and documentary and thereafter to pass an order strictly in accordance with law. Petition is ordered accordingly. Cost quantified at Rs. 10,000/- payable to 3rd respondent-workman on the next date of hearing before the Controlling Authority.