KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER Vs. DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND CONTROLLING AUTHORITY AND GANGAMMA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS.@RESPONDEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A Public Road Transport Corporation aggrieved by the orders dated 12.11.2009 Annexure -A of the Controlling Authority and dated 22.8.2012 Annexure -C of the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, has presented this petition. The only contention of the Learned counsel for the petitioner -Corporation is that Rs. 44,500/ - paid and credited to the loan Account of the workman, by name H.A. Lakshmaiah, since deceased, represented by widow and children, from out of the gratuity when not taken into consideration has resulted in injustice.

(2.) PER contra, Sri. M.C. Basavaraju, learned counsel for the respondents -legal representatives of the workman submits that neither the workman conceded to hive off Rs. 44,500/ - from out of gratuity and make payment towards alleged loan account with State Bank of Mysore nor was there evidence to substantiate the same before the Controlling Authority and Appellate Authority and therefore, the orders impugned do not call for interference.

(3.) IT is in the absence of relevant material constituting substantial legal evidence of the aforesaid fact it is not open for the petitioner -Corporation to assert that the workman extended his consent to deduct Rs. 44,500/ - from out of his gratuity amount and remit it to the State Bank of Mysore, Turuvekere. Yet again what is surprising is that the widow of the deceased workman examined as AW -1, when tendered for cross -examination there was not a suggestion that the workman was due the aforesaid sum of money and payable to State Bank of Mysore and that it was a lawful deduction effected from out of the gratuity payable to the workman. Regard being had to the provisions of the. Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 which does not provide for a deduction of the nature done by the petitioner -Corporation, as a lawful deduction, from out of the gratuity payable to the workman, no exception can be taken to the reasons, findings and conclusions arrived at by the authorities below calling for interference with the orders impugned. Petition devoid of merit is rejected.