KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER Vs. DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY, BANGALORE, THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND CONTROLLING AUTHORITY, MY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT No. 3 was an employee of the petitioner, having joined service as a badli driver on 17.05.1975. He was dismissed from service on 14.06.1976 and the same was questioned in I.D. No. 93/1984. The reference was allowed in part on 30.06.1986 and reinstatement of the workman to the post held by him as on the date of termination with consequential benefits as permissible in law was awarded. In pursuance thereof, the respondent - workman was reinstated on 11.05.1987 and he was confirmed in service by an order dated 18.11.1987. Respondent attained the age of superannuation on 31.05.1997 and filed an application before the 2nd respondent claiming difference of gratuity. By an order dated 11.01.2000, the 2nd respondent determined the difference of gratuity payable by the petitioner to the workman at Rs. 23,051/ -. An appeal filed by the petitioner - Corporation against the said order having been dismissed on 28.05.2011, the petitioner deposited Rs. 24,077/ - together with interest. 3rd respondent having filed application in PGA/CR -128/2004 -05 claiming difference of gratuity before the 2nd respondent, the same was allowed directing deposit of Rs. 2,92,059/ - as difference of gratuity amount payable by the petitioner. An appeal filed there against by the petitioner before the 1st respondent having been dismissed on the ground that it was filed beyond the condonable delay period vide order at Annexure -J, this writ petition has been filed to quash the orders passed by the respondents 1 and 2 vide Annexures - J and H.

(2.) SMT . H.R. Renuka, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner contended that in view of the orders passed by the respondents 1 and 2 vide Annexures -B and C, principles of res judicata are attracted and the 2nd respondent is unjustified in passing the order as at Annexure -H and that the 1st respondent has committed illegality in mechanically rejecting the appeal by passing the order as at Annexure -J. She further submitted that the matter requires consideration by the Appellate Authority, in view of the attraction of principles of res judicata and the appeal having been dismissed on a technical ground, interference is warranted. Learned counsel placed reliance on an order dated 20.01.2006 passed in W.P. No. 2550/2005 vide Annexure -K.

(3.) 3rd respondent though served with the notice of the writ petition has remained unrepresented.