Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation vs The Deputy Labour Commissioner and The Appellate Authority, The Assistant Labour Commissioner and Controlling Authority and Gangamma Since Deceased by LRs.

Ram Mohan Reddy, J.—A Public Road Transport Corporation aggrieved by the orders dated 12.11.2009 Annexure-A of the Controlling Authority and dated 22.8.2012 Annexure-C of the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, has presented this petition. The only contention of the Learned counsel for the petitioner-Corporation is that Rs. 44,500/- paid and credited to the loan Account of the workman, by name H.A. Lakshmaiah, since deceased, represented by widow and children, from out of the gratuity when not taken into consideration has resulted in injustice.

Per contra, Sri. M.C. Basavaraju, learned counsel for the respondents-legal representatives of the workman submits that neither the workman conceded to hive off Rs. 44,500/- from out of gratuity and make payment towards alleged loan account with State Bank of Mysore nor was there evidence to substantiate the same before the Controlling Authority and Appellate Authority and therefore, the orders impugned do not call for interference.

There is no dispute that the deceased workman when dismissed from service was entitled to gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, if more beneficial, than determination of gratuity under the KSRTC Gratuity Regulations. It is also not in dispute that the workman filed an application under the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 for determination of the gratuity in which the Corporation arraigned as a respondent, opposed the petition by filing counter statement. In the trial before the Controlling Authority one L. Dakshanamurthy, s/o Murulayya, E.S.T. Superintendent of Tumkur Division, was examined as a witness for the Corporation. In the affidavit, by way of examination in chief of RW-1, there was not even a mention as to the amount of Rs. 44,500/- said to have been deducted from out of the gratuity payable to the workman and remitted to the State Bank of Mysore in respect of the alleged loan amount due by the workman. However, in cross examination stated that Rs. 46,500/- was deducted and made over to State Bank of Mysore, Turuvekere, though the workman had not executed any consent letter for effecting the deduction. The material on record does not disclose a demand by State Bank of Mysore, Turuvekere calling upon the Corporation calling to deposit Rs. 44,500/- towards monies due in the loan account of the deceased workman..

It is in the absence of relevant material constituting substantial legal evidence of the aforesaid fact it is not open for the petitioner-Corporation to assert that the workman extended his consent to deduct Rs. 44,500/- from out of his gratuity amount and remit it to the State Bank of Mysore, Turuvekere. Yet again what is surprising is that the widow of the deceased workman examined as AW-1, when tendered for cross-examination there was not a suggestion that the workman was due the aforesaid sum of money and payable to State Bank of Mysore and that it was a lawful deduction effected from out of the gratuity payable to the workman.

Regard being had to the provisions of the. Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 which does not provide for a deduction of the nature done by the petitioner-Corporation, as a lawful deduction, from out of the gratuity payable to the workman, no exception can be taken to the reasons, findings and conclusions arrived at by the authorities below calling for interference with the orders impugned.

Petition devoid of merit is rejected.