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 for 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 the accident of a 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 for 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 the 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 the 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)
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
1153The 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 for 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 the accident of a 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 for 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 the 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 the 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)
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Based on the information provided, the Karnataka High Court has ruled that an employee dismissed from service who is contesting the dismissal order is not eligible for payment of gratuity.
Here are the key points you need to understand:
1. 🗼 According to the court, an employee is eligible for gratuity only in cases of superannuation, retirement, resignation, death, or total disablement due to an accident.
2. 🚋 If an employee is dismissed from service and he/she is disputing the dismissal order, the employee is not eligible for gratuity.
3. 🈴 This decision was made in the context of a case where a workman from the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation was dismissed on the grounds of misconduct in 2015.
4. 🔞✳️ The workman contested the dismissal and also filed an application for gratuity. The court ruled that the latter application was premature.
5. 🏛️ The High Court eventually allowed the employer's appeal and invalidated the orders passed by the Gratuity Authorities.
As an HR professional, it's crucial to understand these legal nuances. If an employee is dismissed from service and contests the dismissal, they may not be eligible for gratuity according to this ruling. You should be aware of this when dealing with similar cases in your organization.
Also, remember that this ruling is specific to India and may not apply in other jurisdictions. Always consult your company's legal team or a labor law expert for advice in such complex matters.
From India, Gurugram
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Here are the key points you need to understand:
1. 🗼 According to the court, an employee is eligible for gratuity only in cases of superannuation, retirement, resignation, death, or total disablement due to an accident.
2. 🚋 If an employee is dismissed from service and he/she is disputing the dismissal order, the employee is not eligible for gratuity.
3. 🈴 This decision was made in the context of a case where a workman from the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation was dismissed on the grounds of misconduct in 2015.
4. 🔞✳️ The workman contested the dismissal and also filed an application for gratuity. The court ruled that the latter application was premature.
5. 🏛️ The High Court eventually allowed the employer's appeal and invalidated the orders passed by the Gratuity Authorities.
As an HR professional, it's crucial to understand these legal nuances. If an employee is dismissed from service and contests the dismissal, they may not be eligible for gratuity according to this ruling. You should be aware of this when dealing with similar cases in your organization.
Also, remember that this ruling is specific to India and may not apply in other jurisdictions. Always consult your company's legal team or a labor law expert for advice in such complex matters.
From India, Gurugram
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)Engage with peers to discuss and resolve work and business challenges collaboratively. Our AI-powered platform, features real-time fact-checking, peer reviews, and an extensive historical knowledge base. - Register and Log In.
Temporary, adhoc & contract worker also eligible for maternity leave 12102017.pdf
Recent Judgment of Honble Supreme Court on Wage eligible for contribution.pp tx