KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER, THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND S.L. HOMBALAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER -Public Road Transport Corporation, aggrieved by the order dated 3.2.2010 Annexure -A, of the second respondent -Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the order dated 7.2.2013 Annexure -B of the Appellate Authority, has presented this petition. By a memo dated 30.7.2013, petitioner -Corporation did not press the first relief to quash the order dated 3.2.10 Annexure - 'A' of the Controlling Authority.

(2.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the pleadings and examined the order Annexure -B.

(3.) FACTS not in dispute are that the third respondent -Depot Manager in the petitioner -Corporation attained the age of superannuation on 31.1.1994 and received the gratuity of Rs. 1,09,487/ -. On the assertion that, the Government Order dated 13.9.2006 and the retrospective operation of Rule 293 -C of the Karnataka Civil Service Rules, with effect from 1.7.1993, coupled with Clause -5 of the Memorandum of Settlement signed on 17th July 1989, issued notice dated 11.2.2008 to the petitioner -Corporation to re -determine the gratuity by merging Dearness Allowance calculated at 90% of the basic pay which, when not favourably considered led to filing a petition before the Controlling Authority to re -determine gratuity, together with an application under Rule 10(i) of the Payment of Gratuity Rules (Central) 1972 for short Rules, to condone the delay of 2 years and 3 months. In the affidavit accompanying the application, the third respondent stated that the cause of action arose on 13.9.2006 when the State Government issued the order to merge 90% of the basic pay as Dearness Allowance and to calculate gratuity in respect of employees, who retired or died on or after 1.7.1993. The application was opposed by filing statement of objection, of the petitioner arraigned as respondent therein, inter alia, contending that the delay of 13 years was inordinate and was a stale claim. The Controlling Authority, in the premise of pleadings of parties, framed points for consideration and by order dated 3.2.2010 Annexure -A rejected the application to condone the delay and the petition to re -determine gratuity.