High CourtsSingle Bench(2024) 06 KAR CK 0042

Assistant Executive Engineer, Cauvery Neeravari Nigama Ltd., No.01, K.C.Sub-Division, Saraguru, H.D.Kote Taluk, Mysore District & Others vs Deputy Labour Commissioner & Appellate Authority, Bannerghatta Road, Karmika Bhavan, Bangalore � 560029 & Others

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 26 June 2024

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.G. Pandit, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 43822 Of 2016 (L-PG)

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 317 words

S.G. Pandit, J

1.

Heard Sri. K.S.Bheemaiah, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. N.Sheshadri, learned counsel for Sri. Santhosh.R.Nelkudri, learned counsel for respondent No.3. Perused the writ petition papers.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are before this Court questioning the correctness and illegality of order dated 31.12.2013 (Annexure-A), wherein the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short 'the Act') directed the petitioners herein to count period prior to regularization of respondent No.3 and to pay the gratuity amount.

3.

Learned counsel Sri. Bheemaiah would submit that the question as to whether the period prior to regularization could be counted for the purpose of gratuity is pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 9156/2023. The same is not disputed by respondent No.3. However, learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that the petitioners have paid entire gratuity amount by counting service prior to the date of regularization. Hence, he submits that this writ petition would no more survive for consideration.

4.

Learned counsel Sri. Bheemaiah would further submit that before the Controlling Authority the gratuity amount counting the service of respondent No.3 prior to his regularization was deposited and before filing the writ petition, the said amount is disbursed to respondent No.3.

5.

The pendency of the above stated Special Leave Petition involving question as to whether the service rendered prior to regularization could be counted for the purpose of calculation of gratuity is pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court. Therefore, the present writ petition could be disposed of with an observation that if the Hon'ble Apex Court decides the issue in favour of petitioners and if the Hon'ble Apex Court declares that period prior to regularization would not count for calculation of gratuity, it is open for the petitioners to initiate appropriate action.

With the above, writ petition stands disposed off.