Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation vs The Deputy Labour Commissioner and The Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, The Assistant Labour Commissioner and Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act and C. Hanumaiah

H.N. Nagamohan Das, J.—Sri Jagadeesh Mundaragi, learned Addl. Government Advocate, is directed to take notice for Respondent No. 1 and 2.

In this writ petition the Petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 16.4.2009 passed by the second Respondent as per Annexure-A and the order dated 14.06.2010 passed by the first Respondent as per Annexure-C under the provisions of Gratuity Act.

Respondent retired from service on superannuation on 31.3.2006. At the time of retirement of Respondent, Petitioner has paid gratuity. Respondent being not satisfied with the payment of gratuity, approached the second Respondent claiming difference in gratuity. The second Respondent by considering the rival contention passed an order on 16.4.2009 as per Annexure-A directing the Petitioner to pay the difference in gratuity amount with 10% interest. Aggrieved by this order of second Respondent both the parties filed appeals before the Appellate Authority the first Respondent herein. By a common order dated 14.6.2010 the Appellate Authority disposed both the appeals by directing the Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 78,734/- together with 10% interest. Hence, this writ petition.

Learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that the first Respondent-Appellate Authority issued a Corrigendum modifying the order dated 14.6.2010 directing the Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 88,734/- instead of Rs. 78,734/- together with interest.

Heard arguments on both the side and perused the entire writ papers.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that both the authorities committed a mistake by taking into consideration the bodali period of the Respondent. There is no material on record to show that the Respondent has not worked for more than 240 days during the badali period. Further, there is no order passed by the Petitioner disentitling the Respondent from claiming gratuity for the badali period. On the other hand the Petitioner has passed an order on 3.4.2002 stating that the Respondent is entitled for gratuity from the date of initial entry into service. In the circumstances, I decline to accept the contention of learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

Secondly it is contended that the authorities are not justified in awarding 10% interest; on the difference in gratuity amount. Learned Counsel for the Respondent with an intention to put an end to the litigation submits that 10% interest may be modified directing the Petitioner to pay 6% interest. The submission of learned Counsel for the Respondent is placed on record. Accordingly, tha following:

ORDER

i) Writ petition is partly allowed.

ii) The impugned award is hereby modified directing the Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 88,734/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of application.

iii) Learned Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance within three weeks.