KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION BANGALORE RURAL DIVISION, BANGALORE BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER REP. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER Vs. THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND CONTR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Public Road Transport Corporation aggrieved by the order dated 22.5.2010 in DLCB -l/PGA/Appeal/CR -50/08 -09 Annexure -B of the 1st Respondent Appellate Authority, has presented this petition.

(2.) THE 3rd Respondent an employee of the Petitioner - Road Transport Corporation on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.4.2005, was entitled to gratuity by computing the quantum either in terms of the KSRTC Servants Gratuity Regulations, for short Regulations or the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, for short Act, whichever is beneficial. Petitioner reckoned 27 years and 6 months as the period of continuous service, by excluding 7 years, 3 months and 22 days from out of 34 years, 9 months and 29 days, alleging absence, leave without salary, suspension and others and accordingly, computed Rs. 1,70,500/ - as gratuity, in terms of the Regulations, from out of which was deducted Rs. 54,350/ - on the premise that the 3rd Respondent was liable to pay towards discharge of a loan extended by the State Bank of Mysore, HSR Layout, while in service. The 3rd Respondent aggrieved by the exclusion of the period of service and the deduction towards discharge of loan, filed an application on 3.6.2007 under Rule 10 of the Payment of Gratuity (Central) Rules, 1972, before the 2nd Respondent - Controlling Authority, numbered as ALCB -4/PGA/CR -74/2007 -08, whence the Petitioner -Corporation arraigned as party Respondent, on notice entered appearance and filed a counter statement, interalia, contending that there was a delay in filing the application and that the computation of gratuity under the Regulation being more beneficial disentitled the retired employee to a re -determination of the gratuity or its difference. The Controlling Authority framed two issues, first of which related to whether there was cause shown to condone the delay and the second as to whether the claim for re -determination of gratuity was justified. Parties entered trial and recorded evidence both oral and documentary. The Controlling Authority having regard to the evidence both oral and documentary, answered the first point in favour of the workman on the premise that on 15.11.2005, Rs. 10,313/ - was remitted by the Corporation as second installment of gratuity and thereafter, despite workman's fervent requests with the Authorities to re -determine the gratuity when not responsive, submitted a claim in Form -I on 14.5.2007 and thereafter, filed an application on 3.6.2007 before the Controlling Authority, and accordingly held was satisfactory explanation for the delay. As regards the other point for consideration, the Controlling Authority declined to accept the Petitioner's plea to exclude 7 years, 3 months and 22 days from out of the total of 34 years, 9 months and 29 days towards period of absence, leave without salary, suspension and others, in the absence of material records, so also declined to accept as a legal deduction Rs. 54,350/ - towards discharge of loan with the State Bank of Mysore, HSR Layout and re -determined Rs. 2,09,071/ - as gratuity by computing the quantum in accordance with the Act, while under the Regulation the computation of gratuity was Rs. 2,18,550/ -, which was beneficial to the workman. Effecting a deduction of Rs. 1,16,150/ - and Rs. 10,313/ -since paid to the 3rd Respondent, directed payment of Rs. 1,02,400/ - with interest at 10% per annum from 31.5.2005, by order dated 15.1.2009 Annexure -A.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner contends that 7 years, 3 months and 22 days being the break in service and not 'continuous service' within the definition of the said term under Section 2(A) of the Act deserves exclusion for computation of gratuity, since the 3rd Respondent was absent, suffered orders of leave without salary, suspension and others while in service. It is next contended that the 3rd Respondent having not discharged the debt due to State Bank of Mysore, hence the deduction of Rs. 54,350/ -.