KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KOLAR DIVISION Vs. DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER & APPELLATE AUTHORITY, BANGALORE & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner-Road Transport Corporation aggrieved by the order dated 22.9.2009 of the 2nd respondent-Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority which when rejected by order dated 18.11.2010 has resulted in this petition.

(2.) The 3rd respondent's husband an employee of the petitioner-Corporation retired on attaining age of superannuation, whence gratuity was paid by reckoning 25 years 9 months as 'active service' and deducting 4 years as break in service due to absence and 7,769.00 as dues payable towards KSRTC, Kolar Society and DCC Bank, Kolar. That employee died in the year 2006 and thereafter his widow respondent No. 3 filed an application under Rule 10 of the Payment of Gratuity (Central) Rules, 1972 (for short the 'Rules') for determination of difference in gratuity however, without showing sufficient cause for the delay of 3 years in filing the application Petitioner on notice, entered appearance resisted the claim by filing counter, advancing amongst others, a plea that the application deserves to be rejected for inordinate delay. The Controlling Authority by order dated 22.9.2009 recorded a finding that delay deserves to be condoned on the basis of the averments set out in the affidavit in lieu of recording examination-in-chief of the 3rd respondent.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner is correct in her submission that there was neither a plea advanced nor evidence over sufficient cause for the delay of 3 years in invoking Rule 10 of the Rules. In other words, there is non-application of mind of the Controlling Authority while answering the issue over condonation of delay. As a consequence, the order of the Controlling Authority suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record calling for interference. Sequentially, the order in appeal of the Appellate Authority is unsustainable.