T. NARAYANASWAMY, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS, SMT. TARA, W/O. LATE NARAYANASWAMY Vs. THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY. REGION-1 KARMIKA BHAVANA, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE-26. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND CONTROLLING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH this matter is posted today for orders, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal. The appellants who are the legal representatives of the deceased T. Narayana Swamy, assailing the correctness of the impugned order dated 12/07/2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 34955/2010 (L -KSRTC), have presented this appeal, so far as it relates to dental of interest on difference of gratuity and in not directing the respondents to pay the simple interest on the difference of gratuity from the date of retirement till the date of payment.

(2.) THE only grievance of the appellants -petitioners is that, they have filed a writ, petition before the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 34955/2030 against the impugned order passed by the first respondent dated 15.5.2010 vide Annexure -C and the order dated 16.4.2009 passed by the 2nd respondent vide Annexure -B. The said writ petition had come up for consideration before the learned Single Judge on 12th July 2011. The learned Single Judge has allowed the said writ petition by quashing the impugned orders and remitted the matter to the 2nd respondent -Controlling Authority for consideration over the claim for re -determination of difference of gratuity of the deceased by considering the reckoning of the period of service allegedly rendered as continuous service from 1969 through to 31.1.1975 and thereafter, to pass orders in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in para -5 of the said order. It is the case of the appellants that, the observation made by the learned Single Judge in Para -5 of the impugned order is contrary to section 7(3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and therefore, it is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside. Therefore, he submitted that, the impugned order is liable to be set aside, in so far as denial of interest on difference of gratuity is concerned.

(3.) WITH the above observations, this appeal stands disposed of.