STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT (SERVICE-B) AND THE CHIEF RESEARCH OFFICER, K.E.R.S. COASTAL ENGINEERING DIVISION Vs. B. KRISHNA, S/O BETTAIAH, CONTRACTOR AND THE ASST. LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) B . Krishna/1st Respondent filed an application under Section 7(4) and Rule 10(1) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the Rules made thereunder alleging that, he joined the 2nd Petitioner's office as Laboratory Assistant and retired on 30.10.2005. According to him, he was drawing a salary of Rs. 8,281/ - p.m. at the time of retirement. The claim made in the application was for directing the 2nd Petitioner to deposit/pay Rs. 1,86,322/ - towards gratuity amount for the period of service i.e., 39 years. The application having been filed belatedly, the application seeking condonation of delay was filed. The 2nd Petitioner which was shown as the Respondent in the application, filed statement of objections and contested the claim. It was stated that, B. Krishna was working on daily wages with effect from 1.5.1969. as Laboratory Assistant and he became permanent servant on 1.1.1990 and retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.10.2005. It was further stated that, at the time of retirement from service, the salary drawn was Rs. 3,300/ - p.m. and Rs. 44,058 was paid towards gratuity and Rs. 26,400/ - towards DCRG i.e., for the period from 1.1.1990 to 31 10.2005. It was stated that, the period of service between 1.1.1969 to 31.10.1989 cannot be reckoned for payment of gratuity and other benefits in terms of the Karnataka Civil Service Rules.

(2.) THE 2nd Respondent/Controlling Authority, allowed the application, by an order dated 26.10.2009, determining the gratuity amount payable at Rs. 1,45,978/ -. This writ petition is directed against the said order.

(3.) SRI K. Govindaraj, learned Counsel appearing for the 1st Respondent on the other hand, firstly contended that, the writ petition is not maintainable since the Petitioners have not exhausted the alternate statutory remedy of appeal under Section 7(7) of the said Act. Secondly, the 2nd Petitioner being the only necessary party was impleaded and has defended the interest of the 1st Petitioner also. Learned Counsel contends that, in W.P.3197/2010 decided on 7.1.2011, the Petitioners i.e., the State and the Taluka Social Welfare Officer, had questioned similar order. The Petitioners were reserved with liberty of filing of appeal against the order of the Controlling Authority and appeal was directed to be disposed of on merit without reference to the question of delay and hence, the Petitioners herein can also be directed to file an appeal and same be ordered to be disposed of on merit, without referring to the question of delay.