Writ Petition No. 20160 of 2024 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:22337 WP No. 20160 of 2024 C/W WP No. 20619 of 2024 WP No. 20767 of 2024 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 20160 OF 2024 (L-PG) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 20619 OF 2024 (L-PG) WRIT PETITION NO. 20767 OF 2024 (L-PG) Digitally signed by BELUR RANGADHAMA NANDINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN WP No. 20160/2024 BETWEEN: M/S. BEML LIMITED, MYSORE COMPLEX, BELAVADI POST, MYSURU – 570 018. REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER (HR), M.K.VIDHYADHARAN, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, [COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER 1958 COMPANIES ACT] (BY SRI. NATARAJA BALLAL A., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT 1972 AND DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER (C) …PETITIONER - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:22337 WP No. 20160 of 2024 C/W WP No. 20619 of 2024 WP No. 20767 of 2024 HC-KAR 'SHRAM SADAN', 3RD CROSS, 3RD MAIN, TUMKUR ROAD, YESHWANTHAPURA, BENGALURU – 560 022. 2. CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT AND ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER (C), 'SHRAMEV JAYATE BHAWAN', YESHWANTHPURA INDUSTRIAL SUBURB, II STAGE, GORENGUNTEPALYA, TUMKUR ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 022.
Legal Reasoning
3. SMT. KAMALAMMA, W/O LATE HANUMANTHE GOWDA, NO.12/1, N BLOCK, HOSA ROAD, KUMBARKOPPAL METAGALLY, MYSURU – 570 018. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ANUPAMA HEGDE., CGC FOR R1 & R2; SRI.V.S.NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE FILE OF R-1 AND 2; QUASH THE ORDERS DATED OF THE R-1 IN APPEAL BEARING NO.36 (74)/2022-B1 DATED 31.01.2024 (ANNEXURE - A) DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE R-2 DATED 20.06.2022 IN APPLICATION NO.48(487)2016-B3 (ANNEXURE - B) AND ETC., IN WP NO. 20619/2024 BETWEEN: M/S. BEML LIMITED, MYSORE COMPLEX, BELAVADI POST, MYSURU – 570 018. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:22337 WP No. 20160 of 2024 C/W WP No. 20619 of 2024 WP No. 20767 of 2024 ...PETITIONER HC-KAR REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER (HR), M.K.VIDHYADHARAN, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, [COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER 1958 COMPANIES ACT] (BY SRI. NATARAJA BALLAL A.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT 1972 AND DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER (C) 'SHRAM SADAN', 3RD CROSS, 3RD MAIN, TUMKUR ROAD, YESHWANTHAPURA, BENGALURU – 560 022. 2. CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT AND ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER (C), 'SHRAMEV JAYATE BHAWAN', YESHWANTHPURA INDUSTRIAL SUBURB, II STAGE, GORENGUNTEPALYA, TUMKUR ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 022. 3. SRI. K. SWAMY, MAJOR, S/O LATE KEMPAIAH SETTY, D.NO.153, 'C' TYPE, NHB COLONY, HOOTAGALLY, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:22337 WP No. 20160 of 2024 C/W WP No. 20619 of 2024 WP No. 20767 of 2024 HC-KAR BELAVADY POST, MYSURU – 570 018. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.ADITYA SINGH, CGC FOR R1 & R2; SRI.V.S.NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE FILE OF R-1 AND 2; QUASH THE ORDERS DATED OF THE R-1 IN APPEAL BEARING NO.36 (72)/2022-B1 DATED 31.01.2024 (ANNX-A) DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE R-2 DATED 20.06.2022 IN APPLICATION NO.48 (488) 2016-B3 (ANNX-B). IN WP NO. 20767/2024 BETWEEN: M/S. BEML LIMITED, MYSORE COMPLEX, BELAVADI POST, MYSURU – 570 018, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER (HR), M. K. VIDHYADHARAN, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956. (BY SRI. NATARAJA BALLAL A., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT 1972 ...PETITIONER - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:22337 WP No. 20160 of 2024 C/W WP No. 20619 of 2024 WP No. 20767 of 2024 HC-KAR AND DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER (C), 'SHRAM SADAN', 3RD CROSS, 3RD MAIN, TUMKUR ROAD, YESHWANTHAPURA, BENGALURU – 560 022. 2. CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT AND ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER (C), 'SHRAMEV JAYATE BHAWAN', YESHWANTHPURA INDUSTRIAL SUBURB, II STAGE, GORENGUNTEPALYA, TUMKUR ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 022. 3. SRI. N. R. VISHWANATHA, MAJOR, S/O. LATE RAMAKRISHNAIAH, D.NO.2558/2, 2ND CROSS, KALIDASA ROAD, V.V. MOHALLA, MYSURU – 570 018. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.ADITYA SINGH, CGC FOR R1 AND R2; SRI.V.S.NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR C/R3) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE FILE OF R-1 AND 2; QUASH THE ORDERS DATED OF THE R-1 IN APPEAL BEARING NO.36 (71)/2022-B1 DATED. 31.01.2024 (ANNX-A) DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE R-2 DATED 20.06.2022 IN APPLICATION NO.48 (490) 2016-B3 (ANNX-B). - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:22337 WP No. 20160 of 2024 C/W WP No. 20619 of 2024 WP No. 20767 of 2024 HC-KAR THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER These petitions are filed assailing the order dated 31.01.2024 wherein the appellate authority dismissed the appeal filed by the management and confirmed the order dated 20.06.2022 passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratutity Act, 1972 (for short, 'the Act of 1972'). 2. Certain facts necessary for adjudication is culled out as under: Respondent No.3 in this petition came to be employed in the petitioner - M/s. BEML. There was dispute between the petitioner - Establishment, respondent No.3 and others similarly placed employees. 3. In terms of the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal in I.D.No.107/2001, the Industrial Tribunal held that respondent No.3/workmen are entitled to regularization as permanent employee of the petitioner - Establishment. The - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:22337 WP No. 20160 of 2024 C/W WP No. 20619 of 2024 WP No. 20767 of 2024 HC-KAR labour Court has also granted 50% of the backwages and other consequential benefits. 4. The petitioner - Establishment questioned the same award in W.P.No.35453/2003 wherein this Court has modified the award passed by the Labour Court, in-part. The award relating to regularization is set aside. However, the Court held that the employees working in the canteen of BEML are the employees of the BEML and they should be given all benefits including welfare benefits on par with the permanent employees with effect from 10.05.2001 to 31.03.2010. 5. The Court also held that the workmen are entitled to regular salaries with other allowances. However, the wages on reduced by 60%. The petitioner-Establishment filed an appeal before this Court in W.A.No.1980/2010 connected with W.A.No.2179/2010. The said writ appeals came to be allowed- in-part vide order dated 12.03.2015. The Court reduced the arrears of difference of salaries and emoluments to 35% as against 40% declared by the learned Single Judge. 6. Respondent No.3 in W.P.Nos.20160/2024, 20619/2024 and 20767/2024 having had benefit of - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:22337 WP No. 20160 of 2024 C/W WP No. 20619 of 2024 WP No. 20767 of 2024 HC-KAR abovementioned orders continued to work in the establishment and attained the age of superannuation on 28.02.2015, 31.05.2015 and 31.05.2015 respectively and in the month of September-2016, submitted an application to the management/establishment to pay the gratuity payable, but the management/establishment did not respond. Hence, respondent No.3/workmen in these petitions approached the Controlling Authority under the Act, 1972. 7. After hearing both the parties, the Controlling Authority passed the orders directing the petitioner- Management to pay the gratuity to respondent No.3/workmen. The appeal filed by the Management was dismissed and order passed by the Controlling Authority is confirmed. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this Court in earlier round of writ petitions and earlier round of writ appeals has not specifically granted gratuity to the employees as such, the employees are not entitled to any gratuity. It is further stated that respondent No.3/workmen in these petitions were not permanent employees and benefit of the Act of 1972 is available only to the permanent employee as - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:22337 WP No. 20160 of 2024 C/W WP No. 20619 of 2024 WP No. 20767 of 2024 HC-KAR such, respondent No.3/workmen in these petitions are not entitled to gratuity. 9. In addition, learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that there is delay on part of respondent No.3/workment in filing the application in prescribed form seeking gratuity, as such, the order of the Appellate Authority is liable to be set aside. 10. In support of the contention the learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation Vs. The Deputy Labour Commissioner and the Appellate Authority and others reported in (2008) 4 Kant LJ 356. 11. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 on the other hand submits that this Court in writ petitions as well in writ appeals has held that respondent No.3/workmen in these petitions are permanently employed by the petitioner - Management and it is not open to the petitioner to contend that respondent No.3/workmen in these petitions are not permanent employee. It is further submitted that an application is filed by - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:22337 WP No. 20160 of 2024 C/W WP No. 20619 of 2024 WP No. 20767 of 2024 HC-KAR three respondents for payment of gratuity in July-2015 after having attained age of superannuation on 28.02.2015, 31.01.2015 and 28.02.2015. The petitioner - Establishment did not respond to the said application and compelled the workmen to approach the Controlling Authority. There is no delay in filing such application and assuming that there is delay, the delay is condoned by the Controlling Authority. 12. In addition, it is also urged that the payment of gratuity under the Act of 1972 does not make any distinction between permanent employee and temporary employee under Section 4 of the Act of 1972, if an employee completes 5 years of service then he is eligible to claim gratuity, if he satisfies other requirements of the Act of 1972. 13. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 14. After going through the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.35453/2003 and W.A.No.1980/2010 C/w W.A.No.2179/2010, absolutely there is no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that this Court held that respondent No.3 in these petitions are the permanent - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:22337 WP No. 20160 of 2024 C/W WP No. 20619 of 2024 WP No. 20767 of 2024 HC-KAR employees of the petitioner - Management. Thus, the contention that respondent No.3/workmen are not permanent employees, were temporary employees has to be rejected. 15. The further contention that respondent No.3/workment were not the employees of BEML and they are employed under independent contractor, again has to be rejected, as this Court has already concluded that respondent No.3/workmen in these petitions are employees of petitioner - Management. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner though has urged that there is no specific direction in the earlier writ petition as well as writ appeal to pay the gratuity, it is to be observed that this Court in W.P.No.35453/2003 has held that the employees are entitled to all consequential benefits and welfare benefits on par with permanent employees. Hardly, there can be any dispute that the payment of the gratuity under the Act of 1972 is a welfare legislation and the gratuity is a welfare measure. 17. This being the position, this Court is of the view that respondent No.3/workmen in these petitions are justified in making a claim for payment of gratuity as same is certainly - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:22337 WP No. 20160 of 2024 C/W WP No. 20619 of 2024 WP No. 20767 of 2024 HC-KAR not excluded and the same is very much granted in the order passed in W.P.No.35453/2003 and confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1980/2010 c/w W.A.No.2179/2010. 18. As far as the contention relating to payment of interest is concerned, it is to be noticed that the Act 1972 itself provides for payment of interest in case of delay in paying the gratuity. Under second proviso of the Section 7 (3A) of the Act of 1972, the interest can be waived provided the employer makes an application and makes out a case for waiving the interest. No such application is filed and no such order is passed. 19. For the aforementioned reasons, this Court is of the
Decision
view that the writ petition has to be rejected. 20. In the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation (supra), it is noticed that the Co-ordinate Bench has remitted the matter to the Controlling Authority to consider the application for condonation of delay and enable the parties to file an application to condone the delay. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:22337 WP No. 20160 of 2024 C/W WP No. 20619 of 2024 WP No. 20767 of 2024 HC-KAR 21. It is noticed at paragraph No.6 of the impugned order in this petition, the Controlling Authority has condoned the delay in filing the application seeking payment of gratuity. Hence, this Court is of the view that the it cannot be said that the claim is time barred or that aspect of delay is not considered. 22. The amount in deposit before the Controlling Authority shall be released in favour of workmen after due identification. 23. Writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE RKA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9