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 TUKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER -Road Transport Corporation, aggrieved by the order dt. 22/2/2010 -Annex. A. of the Controlling Authority, 2nd Respondent, unsuccessfully challenged the order in an appeal to the 1st Respondent, Appellate Authority, who by order dt. 28/12/2010 -Annex. C, dismissed the appeal. Hence this writ petition.

(2.) THE 3rd Respondent, an employee of the Petitioner -Corporation, retired on 31/5/2007, whence gratuity was paid by a calculation in terms of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Servants Gratuity Regulations, for short 'Regulation'. 3rd Respondent, not being satisfied with the said calculation, filed an application under Rule 10 of the Payment of Gratuity (Central) Rules, 1972, along with an application to condone the delay up to 13/3/2008 for re -determination of difference in gratuity. That application was opposed by filing statement of objections of the Respondent, interalia contending that the period from 15/1/1971 to 18/11/1976, while the Petitioner was on badli rolls, was disentitled to be treated as active service for calculating gratuity. In addition, it was contended that Rs. 9,854/ - was a statutory deduction by way of income tax on Rs. 3,61,463/ determined as Gratuity under the Regulations, which was remitted to the income tax authorities.

(3.) ALTHOUGH Smt. H.R. Renuka; learned Counsel for the Petitioner, contends that the period from 15/1/1971 to 18/11/1976, while the 3rd Respondent's name was found in the badli list, ought not to be reckoned as active service, 1 am afraid, is unacceptable. Petitioner, custodian of records relating to the employment particulars of the 3rd Respondent while on the badli rolls, ought to have produced that material, which, for reasons best known to the Petitioner, was not produced and therefore it is too farfetched to contend that it was for the 3rd Respondent to establish completion of 180/240 days of continuous service during the said period to reckon as active service for determining gratuity. So also, merely because no entries are forthcoming in Part -VI of the service register Ex. R4, by itself and nothing more, it cannot be assumed that the 3rd Respondent, while on the badli list, did not complete 180/240 days of continuous service. It is not disputed that in terms of the various settlements entered into between the Petitioner and the Trade union, employees borne on the badli list will have to be brought on time scale of pay, if completed 180 days of continuous service and on probation if completed 240 days of continuous service, provided there exists substantive vacancies in the posts. If the 3rd Respondent was brought on probation, and the service register Ex. R4, opened undoubtedly the service particulars of the 3rd Respondent for having completed 240 days of continuous service, during the badli period, ought to have been recorded in Part -VI.