M/S NIKHARA BHARATH CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD vs SRI. PUTTEGOWDA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58522
WP No. 27467 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010638952023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 15 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 27467 OF 2023 (L-PG)
BETWEEN:
M/S NIKHARA BHARATH CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
SRI KONDANDARAM P
S/O PILLAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
TH
10 MAIN, SRINAGAR
BSK 1ST STAGE
BANGALORE – 560051.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHESHADRI H S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. PUTTEGOWDA
S/O CHIKKASWAMY
SANKALAGERE, MALUR HOBLI
SHETTIHALLI POST
CHANNAPATNA TALUK
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT- 562160 .
2. LABOUR OFFICER AND CONTROLLING AUTHORITY
UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT
ST
SUB DIVISION 2, ROOM NO 32, 1 FLOOR
KARMIKA BHAVANA, BANNERGHATTA ROAD
NEAR DAIRY CIRCLE, BANGALORE - 560029.
3. ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER
AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY
DIVISION - 2, UNDER THE PAYMENT
Digitally Signed by NARENDRA PRASAD
HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58522
WP No. 27467 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010638952023
OF GRATUITY ACT MANJUNATH NAGAR
BAGALAGUNTE, BANGALORE – 560073.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHEKAR L., ADVOCATE FOR R1:
SRI M RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R2 & R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 29/08/2023 NO. ¸ÀPÁD¨ÉA-2/G¥ÁPÁ/ªÉÄÃ/ CR/01/2023-24 PASSED
BY THE R3 THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND
APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT,
SUB-DIVISION-2, BANGALORE (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
ORAL ORDER
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, challenging the order dated
29.08.2023 passed by the third respondent vide
Annexure-A, confirming the order dated 10.01.2023
passed by the second respondent vide Annexure-B,
whereby the second respondent allowed the application
filed by the first respondent–employee seeking payment of
gratuity, thereby directing the petitioner to pay a sum of
Rs.1,18,419/- towards gratuity to the first respondent.
Digitally Signed by NARENDRA PRASAD
HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58522
WP No. 27467 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010638952023
2. The case of the petitioner is that the first
respondent was appointed in the petitioner–Establishment
on 01.05.2015 and was in service for a period of three
years, i.e., till 2018 and further resigned from the
Establishment. Thereafter, the first respondent filed an
application under Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act,
1972 (for short, 'Gratuity Act'), claiming that he was in
service for more than 14 years. It is the case of the
petitioner that the first respondent, by producing
fabricated documents, obtained an order in his favour from
the second respondent vide Annexure-B. Being aggrieved
by the same, the petitioner–Management preferred an
appeal before the third respondent, whereby the third
respondent, by the impugned order vide Annexure-A,
confirmed the order passed by the second respondent and
dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner–Management.
Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this
Court.
Digitally Signed by NARENDRA PRASAD
HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58522
WP No. 27467 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010638952023
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
contended that the first respondent was in service in the
petitioner–Establishment only from the year 2015 to 2018.
However, by fabricating identity card and a payment
voucher, he claimed that he had been in service of the
petitioner–Establishment since 2006. The Controlling
Authority, exercising powers under Section 7 of the
Gratuity Act, allowed the application and directed the
petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,18,419/- towards gratuity
to the first respondent. The appeal preferred by the
petitioner before the Appellate Authority was also
dismissed, relying upon the fabricated identity card and
the payment voucher produced by the first respondent,
thereby confirming the order passed by the Controlling
Authority. Hence, he sought for allowing the writ petition.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the first
respondent contended that the first respondent had been
in service of the petitioner–Establishment since
Digitally Signed by NARENDRA PRASAD
HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58522
WP No. 27467 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010638952023
19.06.2006. In support of his claim, he produced the
identity card issued by the petitioner, which establishes
that he was in service of the petitioner–Establishment
from 2006 to 2018. Therefore, the authorities have rightly
awarded gratuity of Rs.1,18,419/- to the first respondent.
Hence, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
5.Learned Additional Government Advocate
appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 supported the
impugned orders passed by the authorities.
6.Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and
perused the writ petition papers.
7.The specific case of the petitioner is that the first
respondent was appointed in the petitioner–Establishment
on 01.05.2015 and was in service till 2018. On the other
hand, the first respondent claims that he had been in
service of the petitioner–Establishment since 2006. In
order to substantiate his claim, the first respondent
produced an identity card, which was marked as Ex.P4
Digitally Signed by NARENDRA PRASAD
HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58522
WP No. 27467 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010638952023
before the Controlling Authority. Admittedly, Ex.P4 is
neither the original nor a certified copy of the identity
card, but merely a photocopy of the same, which was
marked in evidence before the Controlling Authority. The
petitioner has specifically denied having issued the said
identity card and has contended that the first respondent
has created the document to make a false claim for
gratuity. Even on perusal of the photocopy produced
before this Court, it is evident that the date mentioned
therein has been overwritten.
8.Similarly, the payment voucher marked as Ex.P10
before the Controlling Authority is also a photocopy. The
said document does not disclose in whose favour the
voucher was issued. The petitioner has specifically
disputed the genuineness of the said document before the
Controlling Authority. Further, in the course of cross-
examination, the first respondent has admitted that the
said voucher does not bear his signature.
Digitally Signed by NARENDRA PRASAD
HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58522
WP No. 27467 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010638952023
9.The Controlling Authority, solely relying upon these
disputed documents, has arrived at the conclusion that the
first respondent had been in service of the petitioner–
Establishment since 2006. Except Exs.P4 and P10, no
other documents have been produced by the first
respondent to establish that he had been in service of the
petitioner–Establishment since 2006. When the
genuineness of these documents was specifically disputed
by the petitioner, the Controlling Authority ought to have
examined their evidentiary value before placing reliance
upon them. However, without properly appreciating the
material available on record, the Controlling Authority has
proceeded to accept the claim of the first respondent.
10.In the absence of any cogent and reliable
evidence to establish that the first respondent had been in
service of the petitioner–Establishment since 2006, the
Controlling Authority was not justified in determining the
gratuity payable to the first respondent on the basis of the
Digitally Signed by NARENDRA PRASAD
HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58522
WP No. 27467 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010638952023
alleged period of service. The Appellate Authority has also
failed to consider these material aspects and has
mechanically confirmed the order passed by the
Controlling Authority. Therefore, the findings recorded by
respondent Nos.2 and 3 are contrary to the material
available on record and cannot be sustained in law.
Accordingly, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed.
11.In view of the foregoing reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The order dated 29.08.2023 passed by
respondent No.3 vide Annexure-A and the order dated
10.01.2023 passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-B
are hereby quashed.
(iii) Respondent No.3 is directed to refund the
amount deposited by the petitioner at the time of
Digitally Signed by NARENDRA PRASAD
HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58522
WP No. 27467 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010638952023
preferring the appeal, after due verification, in
accordance with law.
Digitally Signed by NARENDRA PRASAD
HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA
(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD)
JUDGE
CM
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 80