AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
H. Billappa, J.—In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question, the order dated 28-2-2011, passed by the first respondent in case No. DLCB-2/PGA/CR-143/09-10 vide Annexure-C. By the impugned order at Annexure-C, the first respondent has confirmed the order passed by the second respondent in Case No. ALC-3/PGA/CR-186/06 07 dated 14-7-2009.
Aggrieved by that, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
Briefly stated the facts are:
The third respondent joined service as Conductor pursuant to the order dated 30-4-1985 vide Annexure--D. The third respondent was dismissed from service on 11-2-2006. The third respondent filed an application dated 27.2.2007 claiming gratuity. The second respondent by order dated 14-7-2009 has allowed the application determining the gratuity at Rs. . 79,680/- and has directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. . 79,680/- with interest at 10% p.a. from 14-3-2006. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner has preferred an appeal in case No. DLCB-2/PGA/CR-143/09-10. The first respondent by order dated 28-2-2011 has confirmed the order passed by the second respondent. Therefore, this writ petition.
The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned orders cannot be sustained in law. She also submitted that the respondents-1 and 2 have erred in taking the service of the petitioner as 20 years 9 months. The third respondent has served only for a period of 14 years and 4 months. Therefore, the gratuity determined taking the service of the third respondent as 20 years and 9 months is not correct. She also submitted that a sum of Rs. . 54,340/- was remitted to the loan account of the third respondent in K.S.R.T.C. Consumer Co-operative Society through cheque No. 420365 dated 19-01-2007. The respondents 1 and 2 have failed to consider this. Therefore, the impugned orders cannot be sustained in law. She placed reliance on the unreported decisions of this Court in W.P. No. 12484/2008, W.P. No. 38098/2010 and W.P. No. 17743/2007.
As against this, the learned Government Pleader supported the impugned orders He also submitted that under Sec. 4(6) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, it is only damage, loss or destruction of property caused by the employee which can be recovered. He placed reliance on the decision of this Hon''ble Court reported in 2008(6) K.L.J. 679.
I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
The point that arises for consideration is, Whether the impugned orders calls for interference?
It is relevant to note, the third respondent has joined service as conductor in the year 1985. Thereafter, he has been dismissed from service on 11-2-2006. He has rendered service for a period of 20 years and 9 months. Annexures-D and E show that the third respondent has joined services in the year 1985. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention that the third respondent has put in service of only 14 years and 4 months. The respondents 1 and 2 have rightly taken the service of the petitioner as 20 years and 9 months to determine the gratuity. It does not call for interference. The gratuity has been rightly determined at Rs. . 79,680/-. However, the respondents 1 and 2 have failed to give deduction to a sum of Rs. . 54,340/- remitted to the third respondent''s loan account in K.S.R.T.C. Consumer Cooperative Society, Kolar. This Court in W.P. No. 12484/2008, disposed of on 15-11-2011, W.P. No. 38098/2011, disposed of on 22-5-2012, and W.P. No. 17743/2007, disposed of on 5-12-2008 has allowed such deductions. Therefore, the impugned orders in so far as it relates to not giving deduction to the amount remitted to the loan account of the third respondent in KSRTC Consumer Co-operative Society cannot be sustained in law.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in part and the impugned orders passed by the respondents 1 and 2 vide Annexures-A and C are hereby modified directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. . 25,340/- towards gratuity with interest at 10% p.a. from 14-3-2006 till the date of deposit.
It is stated, the amount has been deposited with the second respondent. The second respondent shall pay a sum of Rs. . 25,340/- with interest at 10% p.a. from 14-3-2006 till the date of deposit to the third respondent. The balance amount shall be refunded to the petitioner.