MAHADEVAMMA Vs. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this intra court appeal under Sec. 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 have been filed by the appellant who is the widow of deceased employee against the order dtd. 4/9/2012 passed by the learned Single Judge. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in this appeal, few facts need mention, which are stated hereinafter.

(2.) The facts in nutshell are that the husband of the appellant was appointed as a heavy mazdoor on daily wage basis in irrigation department of Government of Karnataka. The services of husband of the appellant were regularized on 1/1/1990. The husband of the appellant superannuated on 30/6/2004. After the death of husband of the appellant, she filed an application before the Controlling Authority under the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). The Controlling Authority by an order dtd. 19/1/2011 inter alia held that the deceased employee was entitled to payment of gratuity under the provisions of the Act and the appellant in this appeal was directed to make payment of Rs.30,471.00 along with interest at the rate of 10% from 31/7/2004. The Controlling Authority calculated the amount of gratuity deducted the amount of death cum retirement gratuity received by the appellant on superannuation of her husband. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellant in this appeal filed an appeal before the appellate authority. The Appellate Authority by an order dtd. 14/2/2012 dismissed the appeal. The aforesaid order was challenged by respondent No.1 herein before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge by an order dtd. 4/9/2012 allowed the writ petition preferred by respondent No.1 and quashed the orders passed by the controlling authority as well as the appellate authority under the provisions of the Act. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that the appellant had made claim for gratuity before the controlling authority under the provisions of the Act with regard to the period for which husband of the appellant had rendered services as daily wage employee. It is further submitted that from perusal of Sec. 3(1)(b) as well as Sec. 2(3) of the Act, it is evident that the Act was applicable to the husband of the petitioner. It is also pointed out that the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that the claim of gratuity has been made in respect of a period, which is not covered under any Act or Rules and has been made in respect of the period prior to which the services have been regularized. It is further submitted that the issue involved in this appeal is no longer res integra and is squarely covered by decision of the Supreme Court in STATE OF PUNJAB VS. LABOUR COURT, JULLANDAR and ORS., (1980) 1 SCC 4, NETRAM SAHU VS. STATE OF CHATTISGARH AND ANOTHER, (2018) 5 SCC 430, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI VS. DHARAM PRAKASH SHARMA and ANOTHER, AIR 1999 SC 293.