Karnataka HC Quashes ₹1.18 Lakh Gratuity Award Over Worker’s 2006 Service Claim, Citing Disputed ID Card And Voucher

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Controlling Authority was justified in finding that the employee had served the establishment since 2006, relying on the disputed photocopies of an identity card and payment voucher

The court held

The Court held that the findings of the Controlling and Appellate Authorities were unsupported by the material on record and could not be sustained

It also directed

It allowed the writ petition and quashed both orders—the order dated 29 August 2023 and the order dated 10 January 2023

The Appellate Authority was directed, after due verification and in accordance with law, to refund the amount deposited by the employer when filing the appeal

01Facts

The employee claimed gratuity on the basis that he had worked for the petitioner-establishment from 19 June 2006, while the employer maintained that he had been employed only from 1 May 2015 to 2018

¶ 2, 7

The Controlling Authority, acting under Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, directed the employer to pay Rs. 1,18,419; the Appellate Authority upheld that order

¶ 1

The employer challenged both orders under Article 226, disputing the authenticity of the photocopied identity card and payment voucher relied on to establish the earlier service period

¶ 3, 7–8

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Controlling Authority was justified in finding that the employee had served the establishment since 2006, relying on the disputed photocopies of an identity card and payment voucher

¶ 7–9

ii.2. Whether the Appellate Authority’s confirmation of the gratuity award could stand when it had not adequately considered the evidentiary deficiencies identified by the employer

¶ 10

03Law Applied

Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, provides the basis for determining and awarding gratuity

¶ 1–2

In assessing a claim under that provision, the authority must evaluate the evidentiary value of material relied upon to establish the relevant period of service, particularly where the employer specifically disputes its genuineness; a finding of service duration must be supported by cogent and reliable evidence

¶ 9–10

The Court also exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 to review and quash the impugned administrative orders

opening portion · ¶ 11

Provisions in the judgment · 1

PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972 Section 7

04Reasoning

The identity card and payment voucher were photocopies, their genuineness had been specifically disputed, and the identity card contained an overwritten date.

¶ 7–8

The voucher did not disclose in whose favour it had been issued, and the employee admitted that it did not bear his signature

¶ 7–8

As no other documents supported service from 2006, the Controlling Authority had no adequate basis to determine gratuity on that alleged period of employment; it had accepted the disputed documents without properly assessing their evidentiary value

¶ 9

The Appellate Authority likewise failed to address these material deficiencies and mechanically affirmed the decision

¶ 10

05Holding

The Court held that the findings of the Controlling and Appellate Authorities were unsupported by the material on record and could not be sustained

¶ 10

It allowed the writ petition and quashed both orders—the order dated 29 August 2023 and the order dated 10 January 2023

¶ 11

The Appellate Authority was directed, after due verification and in accordance with law, to refund the amount deposited by the employer when filing the appeal

¶ 11

LawLens.Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF