Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation vs The Deputy Labour Commissioner and The Appellate Authority, The Assistant Labour Commissioner and Controlling Authority Under The Payment of Gratuity Act and Channappa

H.N. Nagamohan Das

These two writ petitions are directed against the order at Annexure-C dated 31.8.2007 and the order at Annexure-E dated 15.3.2008 passed by respondents 1 and 2 respectively under the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 97,735/- inclusive of interest.

Petitioner is before this court in WP No. 6193 of 2008 being aggrieved by the impugned orders. The third respondent in WP No. 6193 of 2008 is before this court in WP No. 4330 of 2009 insofar as it relates to denial of portion of his claim under the impugned orders. In this order, for convenience, the parties are referred to their status before the controlling authority.

Petitioner was a Conductor in the respondent -establishment and retired from service on attaining superannuation on 31.10.2005. At the time of retirement of the petitioner, the respondents have paid a sum of Rs. 2,24,744/- after deducting certain amount towards loan and strike period. Aggrieved by the inadequacy of gratuity amount paid by the respondents, petitioner made an application before the controlling authority claiming gratuity of Rs. 1,11,256/-

On contest, the controlling authority passed the impugned order at Annexure-C dated 31.8.2007 determining balance of gratuity amount together with interest at Rs. 97,735/-. Aggrieved by this order at Annexure-C, the respondents filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority and the same came to be dismissed under the impugned order at Annexure-E dated 15.3.2008. Hence these two writ petitions.

I heard the arguments on both the side and perused entire writ petition papers.

The contention of the respondents that the authorities committed a mistake in calculating the gratuity amount for the badali period and break in service is answered against the respondents by this court in the case of ''Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation vs. The Deputy Labour Commissioner and Another'' rendered in writ petition No. 41553 of 2010 disposed on 26.8.2011. Therefore, the contention of respondents relating to badali period and break in service is held against them.

The respondents in their statement of objections before the controlling authority claimed deduction of Rs. 356/- for strike period. This is not supported by any order passed by the respondents. Therefore, both the authorities rightly refused to accept deduction of Rs. 356/-.

Second contention of the respondents that towards loan for purchase of TVS vehicle, they have deducted a sum of Rs. 11,500/- out of the gratuity payable to the petitioner is not supported by any evidence on record.

In the circumstances, the authorities below rightly refused to accept this contention of the respondents. I find no justifiable ground to interfere with the impugned orders.

By taking into consideration the length of service, the last drawn salary, the authorities below rightly determined the balance gratuity payable to the petitioner. The same is in accordance with law.

Accordingly, these two writ petitions are hereby rejected.