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. AHAMED JOHN S/O IMAM BASHEER AND THE ASST. LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND CONTROL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE 1st Respondent filed an application under Section 7(4) and Rule 10(1) of Payment of Gratuity Act ('the Act' for short) and Rules before the 2nd Respondent contending that, he joined the Petitioners' office on 1.1.1966 as Lab Assistant and retired on 10.6.2004 and he is entitled to be paid Rs. 1,18,910/ - towards gratuity. The application was accompanied by I.A.1 for condonation of delay. The 2nd Petitioner appeared before the 2nd Respondent and filed statement of objections wherein, it was contended that, the 1st Respondent was a daily wage worker from 16.12.1966 and was made permanent on 1.1.1990 and retired from service on 30.6.2004 by drawing salary of Rs. 3,300/ - p.m. It was stated that, the employee was paid Rs. 47,415/ - towards gratuity and Rs. 23,708/ - towards DCRG for the period from 1.1.1990 to 30.6.2004 as per K.C.S. Rules. It was further contended that, for the daily wage service from 15.12.1966 to 31.12.1989, he was not liable to be paid any gratuity and other benefits as per K.C.S. Rules.

(2.) THE 2nd Respondent allowed the application by an order dated 26.10.2009, determining the gratuity amount payable at Rs. 1,18,911/ -. The said order has been questioned in this writ petition.

(3.) SRI V.S. Naik, learned Counsel appearing for the 1st Respondent on the other hand, firstly contended that, the writ petition is not maintainable for not filing an appeal as provided under Section 7(7) of the Act. Secondly, in view of the order passed in W.P.1806/1999 dated 18.8.1999, which was confirmed in judgment dated 6.12.2000 passed in W.A.2761/2000, the service rendered as a daily wager is also required to be counted and gratuity paid. Thirdly, in view of the order dated 30.8.2006, authorising the 2nd Petitioner to engage the services of the Government Advocate at Mysore to appear in the matter and take appropriate defence, the plea of the necessary party having not been accepted is too technical, since the State though being aware that it has not been impleaded as a party, as is evident from the taken from statement of objections, it ought to have come on record on its own, if interested in participating in the proceedings. Learned Counsel submits that, the writ petition is devoid of merit and hence, no interference with the impugned order is called for.