Workman Is Not Eligible For Payment Of Gratuity If He Has Questioned Order Of Dismissal From Service: Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court held that a workman cannot file an application claiming that he is eligible for payment of gratuity when he has questioned the order of dismissal from service.
The Court was deciding a writ petition in which a workman in the establishment of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation was dismissed from service on an act of misconduct in the year 2015.
A Single Bench of Justice Jyoti Mulimani said, “Suffice it to note that an employee is eligible for payment of gratuity in the event of superannuation, retirement, resignation and death or total disablement due to accident of deceased employee. In the present case, the workman is dismissed from the service and he has not accepted the order of dismissal and he has questioned the same before the Labour Court. Hence, he cannot file an application claiming that he is eligible for payment of gratuity. The Gratuity Authorities have failed to take note of the fact that the workman has questioned the order of dismissal. Hence, he is not eligible for payment of gratuity.”
The Bench added that the application filed by the workman for payment of gratuity is premature.
Advocate H.R. Renuka represented the petitioner while HCGP V. Spoorthi and Advocate Satish K. represented the respondents.
In this case, a workman raised a dispute before the Labour Court, Bengaluru as he was dismissed from service on an act of misconduct and the same was dismissed. He questioned the award before the High Court and the same was disposed of and the matter was remanded to the Labour Court vide an order in 2023. He filed an application before the Controlling Authority seeking payment of gratuity.
The Corporation did not contest the aforesaid application and determined the gratuity amount payable to the workman. As against the order of Controlling Authority, the Corporation preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority and the same was allowed. The same was remitted to the Controlling Authority for fresh adjudication. After remand, the Controlling Authority determined the gratuity and directed the Corporation to pay a sum of Rs. 2,68,800/- as per the Gratuity Regulations. The Appellate thereafter rejected the appeal of the Corporation and hence, it was before the High Court.
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case observed, “The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require reiteration. It is not in dispute that the workman was dismissed from service on 16.05.2015 on the proved charge of misbehavior with the checking officials as also obstructed the process of checking. It is also not in dispute that he has questioned the order of dismissal before the Labour Court, Bengaluru in I.D.No.40/2015 and the same is pending consideration.”
The Court noted that the workman questioned the order of dismissal and has not accepted the order of dismissal.
“In view of disposal of the Writ Petition, the Controlling Authority is directed to refund the amount in deposit to the Corporation”, directed the Court.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the orders passed by the Gratuity Authorities.
Cause Title- Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. The Assistant Labour Commissioner & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2023:KHC:44836)
https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/workman-application-gratuity-dismissal-from-service-karnataka-hc-1512831
From India, Madras
951The Karnataka High Court held that a workman cannot file an application claiming that he is eligible for payment of gratuity when he has questioned the order of dismissal from service.
The Court was deciding a writ petition in which a workman in the establishment of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation was dismissed from service on an act of misconduct in the year 2015.
A Single Bench of Justice Jyoti Mulimani said, “Suffice it to note that an employee is eligible for payment of gratuity in the event of superannuation, retirement, resignation and death or total disablement due to accident of deceased employee. In the present case, the workman is dismissed from the service and he has not accepted the order of dismissal and he has questioned the same before the Labour Court. Hence, he cannot file an application claiming that he is eligible for payment of gratuity. The Gratuity Authorities have failed to take note of the fact that the workman has questioned the order of dismissal. Hence, he is not eligible for payment of gratuity.”
The Bench added that the application filed by the workman for payment of gratuity is premature.
Advocate H.R. Renuka represented the petitioner while HCGP V. Spoorthi and Advocate Satish K. represented the respondents.
In this case, a workman raised a dispute before the Labour Court, Bengaluru as he was dismissed from service on an act of misconduct and the same was dismissed. He questioned the award before the High Court and the same was disposed of and the matter was remanded to the Labour Court vide an order in 2023. He filed an application before the Controlling Authority seeking payment of gratuity.
The Corporation did not contest the aforesaid application and determined the gratuity amount payable to the workman. As against the order of Controlling Authority, the Corporation preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority and the same was allowed. The same was remitted to the Controlling Authority for fresh adjudication. After remand, the Controlling Authority determined the gratuity and directed the Corporation to pay a sum of Rs. 2,68,800/- as per the Gratuity Regulations. The Appellate thereafter rejected the appeal of the Corporation and hence, it was before the High Court.
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case observed, “The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require reiteration. It is not in dispute that the workman was dismissed from service on 16.05.2015 on the proved charge of misbehavior with the checking officials as also obstructed the process of checking. It is also not in dispute that he has questioned the order of dismissal before the Labour Court, Bengaluru in I.D.No.40/2015 and the same is pending consideration.”
The Court noted that the workman questioned the order of dismissal and has not accepted the order of dismissal.
“In view of disposal of the Writ Petition, the Controlling Authority is directed to refund the amount in deposit to the Corporation”, directed the Court.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the orders passed by the Gratuity Authorities.
Cause Title- Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. The Assistant Labour Commissioner & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2023:KHC:44836)
https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/workman-application-gratuity-dismissal-from-service-karnataka-hc-1512831
From India, Madras
Community Support and Knowledge-base on business, career and organisational prospects and issues - Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query, download formats and be part of a fostered community of professionals.
Temporary, adhoc & contract worker also eligible for maternity leave 12102017.pdf
Recent Judgment of Honble Supreme Court on Wage eligible for contribution.pp tx