- 1 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS ® IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE4H DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.6795 OF2020(L-TER) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.6781 OF2020(L-RES) WRIT PETITION NO.6783 OF2020(L-RES) WRIT PETITION NO.6786 OF2020(L-RES) WRIT PETITION NO.6788 OF2020(L-TER) WRIT PETITION NO.6790 OF2020(L-RES) WRIT PETITION NO.6791 OF2020(L-TER) WRIT PETITION NO.6794 OF2020(L-TER) WRIT PETITION NO.6797 OF2020(L-TER) WRIT PETITION NO.6798 OF2020(L-RES) WRIT PETITION NO.6799 OF2020(L-RES) WRIT PETITION NO.6800 OF2020(L-RES) WRIT PETITION NO.6804 OF2020(L-TER) WRIT PETITION NO.6806 OF2020(L-RES) WRIT PETITION NO.6838 OF2020(L-TER) WRIT PETITION NO.6907 OF2020(L-TER) WRIT PETITION NO.6972 OF2020(L-RES) WRIT PETITION NO.6973 OF2020(L-RES) WRIT PETITION NO.6974 OF2020(L-RES) WRIT PETITION NO.6975 OF2020(L-RES) WRIT PETITION NO.6976 OF2020(L-RES) WRIT PETITION NO.7031 OF2020(L-RES) WRIT PETITION NO.7032 OF2020(L-RES) WRIT PETITION NO.2525 OF2021(L-TER) WRIT PETITION NO.2526 OF2021(L-RES) IN WP NO.6795 OF2020BETWEEN STANZEN LINKS (INDIA) LTD., 473-A/2, 12TH CROSS4H PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA - 2 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS BENGALURU-560 058 REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI. S.V. KULKARNI AGED ABOUT65YEARS ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.N.MURTHY, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI. SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE-VC) AND:
1. SRI. H.V. NAGESHA S/O SRI. VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT39YEARS C/O MUDDAHANUMEGOWDA R/AT NO.113-50, 1ST ‘A’ CROSS RAJAGOPALANAGARA PEENYA2D STAGE BENGALURU-560 058 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR M/S. TOYOTETSU INDIA (P) LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS STANZEN TOYOTETSU INDIA (P) LTD., TOYOTA TECHNO PARK PLOT NO.20, BUILDING NO.2 BIDADI INDUSTRIAL AREA RAMANAGAR DISTRICT-562109 (R2-IMPLEADED AS PER
ORDERDATED1608.2022) … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.S. ANANTHARAM FOR C/R; SRI. J.
KANIKARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2-VC) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD DATED2112.2019 PASSED BY THE FIRST ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, BENGALURU IN ID NO.101/2016 AT ANNEXURE-S TO THE W.P. AND ETC. ***** IN WP NO.6781 OF2020BETWEEN: STANZEN LINKS (INDIA) LTD., 473-A/2, 12TH CROSS - 3 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS4H PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA BENGALURU-560 058 REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI. S.V. KULKARNI AGED ABOUT65YEARS ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.N.MURTHY, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI. SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE-VC) AND:
1. SRI. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA S/O SRI. ERAKYATHAPPA AGED ABOUT52YEARS R/AT NO.25, 2ND 'A' MAIN ROAD6H CROSS, BYRAVESHWARANAGARA LAGGERE, BENGALURU-560058 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR M/S. TOYOTETSU INDIA (P) LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS STANZEN TOYOTETSU INDIA (P) LTD., TOYOTA TECHNO PARK PLOT NO.20, BUILDING NO.2 BIDADI INDUSTRIAL AREA RAMANAGAR DISTRICT-562109 (R2-IMPLEADED AS PER
ORDERDATED1608.2022) … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.S. ANANTHARAM FOR C/R SRI. J.
KANIKARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2-VC) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD DATED2112.2019 PASSED BY THE FIRST ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, BENGALURU IN ID NO.90/2016 AT ANNEXURE-S TO THE W.P. AND ETC. ***** IN WP NO.6783 OF2020BETWEEN: STANZEN LINKS (INDIA) LTD., 473-A/2, 12TH CROSS4H PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA - 4 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS BENGALURU-560 058 REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI. S.V. KULKARNI AGED ABOUT65YEARS ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.N.MURTHY, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI. SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE-VC) AND:
1. SRI. BHYRESH M.B. S/O SRI. CHIKKATHIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT48YEARS R/AT NO.101, 5TH CROSS, 50 FEET ROAD NEAR VENKATESHWARA SERVICE STATION CHOWDESHWARINAGARA, LAGGERE BENGLAURU-560058 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR M/S. TOYOTETSU INDIA (P) LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS STANZEN TOYOTETSU INDIA (P) LTD., TOYOTA TECHNO PARK PLOT NO.20, BUILDING NO.2, BIDADI INDUSTRIAL AREA RAMANAGAR DISTRICT-562109 (R2-IMPLEADED AS PER
ORDERDATED1608.2022) … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.S. ANANTHARAM FOR C/R SRI. J.
KANIKARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2-VC) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD DATED2112.2019 PASSED BY THE FIRST ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, BENGALURU IN ID NO.35/2016 AT ANNEXURE-S TO THE W.P. AND ETC. ***** IN WP NO.6786 OF2020BETWEEN: STANZEN LINKS (INDIA) LTD., 473-A/2, 12TH CROSS4H PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA BENGALURU-560 058 - 5 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS REP BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI.S.V. KULKARNI AGED ABOUT65YEARS ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.N.MURTHY, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI. SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE-VC) AND:
1. SRI. C.N. CHANDREGOWDA S/O SRI. NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT41YEARS R/AT NO.197/3, 3RD CROSS CHOWDESHWARINAGARA LAGGERE, BENGALURU56005 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR M/S. TOYOTETSU INDIA (P) LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS STANZEN TOYOTETSU INDIA (P) LTD., TOYOTA TECHNO PARK PLOT NO.20, BUILDING NO.2, BIDADI INDUSTRIAL AREA RAMANAGAR DISTRICT-562109. (R2-IMPLEADED AS PER
ORDERDATED1608.2022) … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.S. ANANTHARAM FOR C/R SRI. J.
KANIKARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2-VC) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD DATED2112.2019 PASSED BY THE FIRST ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, BENGALURU IN ID NO.64/2016 AT ANNEXURE-S TO THE W.P. AND ETC. ***** IN WP NO.6788 OF2020BETWEEN: STANZEN LINKS (INDIA) LTD., 473-A/2, 12TH CROSS4H PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA BENGALURU-560 058 REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER - 6 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS SRI.S.V. KULKARNI AGED ABOUT65YEARS ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.N.MURTHY, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI. SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE-VC) AND:
1. SRI. B. KRISHNA MURTHY S/O SRI. BETTEGOWDA AGED ABOUT34YEARS R/AT NO.824, 32ND MAIN ROAD JAIMARUTHINAGARA, NANDINI LAYOUT BENGALURU-560096 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR M/S. TOYOTETSU INDIA (P) LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS STANZEN TOYOTETSU INDIA (P) LTD., TOYOTA TECHNO PARK PLOT NO.20, BUILDING NO.2 BIDADI INDUSTRIAL AREA RAMANAGAR DISTRICT-562109 (R2-IMPLEADED AS PER
ORDERDATED1608.2022) … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. J.S. ANANTHARAM FOR C/R SRI. J.
KANIKARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2-VC) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD DATED2112.2019 PASSED BY THE FIRST ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, BENGALURU IN ID NO.98/2016 AT ANNEXURE-S TO THE W.P. AND ETC. ***** IN WP NO.6790 OF2020BETWEEN: STANZEN LINKS (INDIA) LTD., 473-A/2, 12TH CROSS4H PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA BENGALURU-560 058 REP BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER - 7 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS SRI.S.V. KULKARNI AGED ABOUT65YEARS ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.N.MURTHY, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI. SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE-VC) AND:
1. SRI G.G. MAHESH S/O SRI GANGANNA, AGED ABOUT41YEARS, R/AT610 BHAIRAVESHWARA NILAYA, KEMPEGOWDA NAGARA NEAR MANJUNATHA PROVISION STORE T. DASARAHALLI BENGALURU56005 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR M/S. TOYOTETSU INDIA (P) LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS STANZEN TOYOTETSU INDIA (P) LTD., TOYOTA TECHNO PARK PLOT NO.20, BUILDING NO.2, BIDADI INDUSTRIAL AREA RAMANAGAR DISTRICT-562109. (R2-IMPLEADED AS PER
ORDERDATED1608.2022) … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.S. ANANTHARAM FOR C/R SRI. J.
KANIKARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2-VC) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD DATED2112.2019 PASSED BY THE FIRST ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, BENGALURU IN ID NO.76/2016 AT ANNEXURE-S TO THE W.P. AND ETC. ***** IN WP NO.6791 OF2020BETWEEN: STANZEN LINKS (INDIA) LTD., 473-A/2, 12TH CROSS4H PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA BENGALURU-560 058 - 8 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS REP BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI.S.V. KULKARNI AGED ABOUT67YEARS ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.N.MURTHY, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI. SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE-VC) AND:
1. SRI. RAJA S/O SRI. RUDRAIAH AGED ABOUT52YEARS R/AT NO.105, 7TH CROSS DODDANNA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE SRIGANGADHANAGARA HEGGANAHALLI VISHWANEEDHAM POST BENGALURU-560 091 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR M/S. TOYOTETSU INDIA (P) LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS STANZEN TOYOTETSU INDIA (P) LTD., TOYOTA TECHNO PARK PLOT NO.20, BUILDING NO.2, BIDADI INDUSTRIAL AREA RAMANAGAR DISTRICT-562109. (R2-IMPLEADED AS PER
ORDERDATED1608.2022) … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.S. ANANTHARAM FOR C/R SRI. J.
KANIKARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD DTD.21.12.2019 PASSED BY THE FIRST ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, BENGALURU IN ID NO.88/2016 AT ANENXURE-S TO THE W.P.AND ETC. ***** IN WP NO.6794 OF2020BETWEEN: STANZEN LINKS (INDIA) LTD., - 9 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS473A/2, 12TH CROSS4H PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA BENGALURU-560 058 REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI.S.V. KULKARNI AGED ABOUT65YEARS ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.N.MURTHY, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI. SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE-VC) AND:
1. SRI. SESHAGIRI.D.G. S/O SRI. GANGAPPA AGED ABOUT46YEARS R/AT NO.04 2ND 'A' MAIN ROAD VINAYAKANAGAR, KAMAKSHIPALYA BENGALURU-560079 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR M/S. TOYOTETSU INDIA (P) LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS STANZEN TOYOTETSU INDIA (P) LTD., TOYOTA TECHNO PARK PLOT NO.20, BUILDING NO.2, BIDADI INDUSTRIAL AREA RAMANAGAR DISTRICT-562109. (R2-IMPLEADED AS PER
ORDERDATED1608.2022) … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.S. ANANTHARAM FOR C/R SRI. J.
KANIKARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2-VC) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD DATED2112.2019 PASSED BY THE FIRST ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, BENGALURU IN ID NO.108/2016 AT ANNEXURE-S TO THE W.P. AND ETC. ***** IN WP NO.6797 OF2020BETWEEN: STANZEN LINKS (INDIA) LTD., 473-A/2, 12TH CROSS - 10 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS4H PHASE PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA BENGALURU-560 058 REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI.S.V. KULKARNI AGED ABOUT65YEARS ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.N.MURTHY, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI. SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE-VC) AND:
1. SRI. KALASEGOWDA S/O SRI. KALASAIAH AGED ABOUT52YEARS R/AT NO.18, 14TH CROSS NEAR SHURSHRUTHI SCHOOL SHURSHRUTHINAGARA, HEGGANAHALLI ANDRALLI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560 091 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR M/S. TOYOTETSU INDIA (P) LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS STANZEN TOYOTETSU INDIA (P) LTD., TOYOTA TECHNO PARK PLOT NO.20, BUILDING NO.2 BIDADI INDUSTRIAL AREA RAMANAGAR DISTRICT-562109. (R2-IMPLEADED AS PER
ORDERDATED1608.2022) … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.S. ANANTHARAM FOR C/R SRI. J.
KANIKARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2-VC) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD DATED2112.2019 PASSED BY THE FIRST ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, BENGALURU IN ID NO.63/2016 AT ANNEXURE-S TO THE W.P. AND ETC. ***** IN WP NO.6798 OF2020BETWEEN: STANZEN LINKS (INDIA) LTD., 473-A/2, 12TH CROSS - 11 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS4H PHASE PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA BENGALURU-560 058 REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI.S.V. KULKARNI AGED ABOUT67YEARS ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.N.MURTHY, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI. SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE-VC) AND:
1. SRI. C.K. MURTHY S/O SRI. KAPPANNA AGED ABOUT38YEARS R/AT C/O PAPAMMA, NO.44 1ST MAIN, 2ND CROSS RAJESHWARINAGARA GOPALAKRISHNA ROAD UDAYA PUBLIC SCHOOL, LAGGERE BENGALURU-560058 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR M/S. TOYOTETSU INDIA (P) LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS STANZEN TOYOTETSU INDIA (P) LTD., TOYOTA TECHNO PARK PLOT NO.20, BUILDING NO.2, BIDADI INDUSTRIAL AREA RAMANAGAR DISTRICT-562109. (R2-IMPLEADED AS PER
ORDERDATED1608.2022) … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.S. ANANTHARAM FOR C/R SRI. J.
KANIKARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2-VC) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD DATED2112.2019 PASSED BY THE FIRST ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT BENGALURU IN ID NO.103/2016 AT ANNEXURE-S TO THE W.P. AND ETC. ***** - 12 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS IN WP NO.6799 OF2020BETWEEN: STANZEN LINKS (INDIA) LTD., 473-A/2, 12TH CROSS4H PHASE PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA BENGALURU-560 058 REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI.S.V. KULKARNI AGED ABOUT65YEARS ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.N.MURTHY, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI. SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE-VC) AND:
1. SRI. H.M. PRASANNA S/O SRI. MAHANTESHAPPA AGED ABOUT41YEARS R/AT20 2ND 'A' MAIN, 6TH CROSS GOVINDARAJANAGARA NEAR VIJAYANAGARA BENGALURU-560040 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR M/S. TOYOTETSU INDIA (P) LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS STANZEN TOYOTETSU INDIA (P) LTD., TOYOTA TECHNO PARK PLOT NO.20, BUILDING NO.2, BIDADI INDUSTRIAL AREA RAMANAGAR DISTRICT-562109. (R2-IMPLEADED AS PER
ORDERDATED1608.2022) … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.S. ANANTHARAM FOR C/R SRI. J.
KANIKARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2-VC) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD DATED2112.2019 PASSED BY THE FIRST ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, BENGALURU IN ID NO.53/2016 AT ANNEXURE-S TO THE W.P.AND ETC. ***** - 13 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS IN WP NO.6800 OF2020BETWEEN: STANZEN LINKS (INDIA) LTD., 473-A/2, 12TH CROSS4H PHASE PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA BENGALURU-560 058 REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI.S.V. KULKARNI AGED ABOUT65YEARS ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.N.MURTHY, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI. SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE-VC) AND:
1. SRI. B.L. CHANDRAKUMAR S/O B.B. LAKSHMAN, AGED ABOUT34YEARS, R/AT BYADARAHALLI MAVINAKERE POST, DOBBEGATTA HOBLI TURUVEKERE TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR M/S. TOYOTETSU INDIA (P) LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS STANZEN TOYOTETSU INDIA (P) LTD., TOYOTA TECHNO PARK PLOT NO.20, BUILDING NO.2, BIDADI INDUSTRIAL AREA RAMANAGAR DISTRICT-562109. (R2-IMPLEADED AS PER
ORDERDATED1608.2022) … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.S. ANANTHARAM FOR C/R SRI. J.
KANIKARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2-VC) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD DATED2112.2019 PASSED BY THE FIRST ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT BENGALURU IN ID NO.17/2016 AT ANNEXURE-S TO THE W.P. AND ETC. ***** - 14 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS IN WP NO.6804 OF2020BETWEEN: STANZEN LINKS (INDIA) LTD., 473-A/2, 12TH CROSS4H PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA BENGALURU-560 058 REP BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI.S.V. KULKARNI AGED ABOUT65YEARS ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.N.MURTHY, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI. SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE-VC) AND:
1. SRI. G. SOMASHEKAR S/O SRI C.GOVINDAYYA AGED ABOUT41YEARS, R/AT NO.13, KAMALA NILAYA2D FLOOR, 7TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN, S.RAMESH ROAD, PRASHANTHANAGARA T.DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 057 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR M/S. TOYOTETSU INDIA (P) LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS STANZEN TOYOTETSU INDIA (P) LTD., TOYOTA TECHNO PARK PLOT NO.20, BUILDING NO.2, BIDADI INDUSTRIAL AREA RAMANAGAR DISTRICT-562109. (R2-IMPLEADED AS PER
ORDERDATED1608.2022) … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.S. ANANTHARAM FOR C/R SRI. J.
KANIKARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2-VC) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD DATED2112.2019 PASSED BY THE FIRST ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT BENGALURU IN ID NO.361/2016 AT ANNEXURE-S TO THE W.P. AND ETC. ***** - 15 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS IN WP NO.6806 OF2020BETWEEN: STANZEN LINKS (INDIA) LTD., 473-A/2, 12TH CROSS4H PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA BENGALURU-560 058 REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI.S.V. KULKARNI AGED ABOUT67YEARS ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.N.MURTHY, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI. SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE-VC) AND:
1. SRI. UMESH. D S/O SRI DODDAIAH AGED ABOUT36YEARS R/AT NO.197/508 3RD CROSS CHOWDESHWARINAGARA LAGGERE, BENGALURU-560058 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR M/S. TOYOTETSU INDIA (P) LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS STANZEN TOYOTETSU INDIA (P) LTD., TOYOTA TECHNO PARK PLOT NO.20, BUILDING NO.2, BIDADI INDUSTRIAL AREA RAMANAGAR DISTRICT-562109. (R2-IMPLEADED AS PER
ORDERDATED1608.2022) … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.S. ANANTHARAM FOR C/R SRI. J.
KANIKARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2-VC) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD DATED2112.2019 PASSED BY THE FIRST ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT BENGALURU IN ID NO.73/2016 AT ANNEXURE-S TO THE W.P. AND ETC. ***** - 16 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS IN WP NO.6838 OF2020BETWEEN: STANZEN LINKS (INDIA) LTD., 473-A/2, 12TH CROSS4H PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA BENGALURU-560 058 REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI.S.V. KULKARNI AGED ABOUT65YEARS ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.N.MURTHY, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI. SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE-VC) AND:
1. SRI D.K. NARAYANA S/O SRI KALASAIAH AGED ABOUT53YEARS, R/AT NO.36, 9TH F CROSS, 3RD MAIN LAKSHMAN NAGAR, HEGGANAHALLI CROSS VISHWANEEDAM POST, BENGALURU-560091.
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR M/S. TOYOTETSU INDIA (P) LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS STANZEN TOYOTETSU INDIA (P) LTD., TOYOTA TECHNO PARK PLOT NO.20, BUILDING NO.2, BIDADI INDUSTRIAL AREA RAMANAGAR DISTRICT-562109. (R2-IMPLEADED AS PER
ORDERDATED1608.2022) … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.S. ANANTHARAM FOR C/R SRI. J.
KANIKARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2-VC) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD DATED2112.2019 PASSED BY THE FIRST ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT BENGALURU IN ID NO.24/2016 AT ANNEXURE-S TO THE W.P.AND ETC. ***** - 17 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS IN WP NO.6907 OF2020BETWEEN: STANZEN LINKS (INDIA) LTD., 473-A/2, 12TH CROSS4H PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA BENGALURU-560 058 REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI.S.V. KULKARNI AGED ABOUT65YEARS ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.N.MURTHY, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI. SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE-VC) AND:
1. SRI. VIJAYKUMAR H S/O HUCHCHAPPA, AGED ABOUT34YEARS, R/AT NO.486, 9TH CROSS, INDIRA NAGAR, WOC ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560010 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR M/S. TOYOTETSU INDIA (P) LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS STANZEN TOYOTETSU INDIA (P) LTD., TOYOTA TECHNO PARK PLOT NO.20, BUILDING NO.2, BIDADI INDUSTRIAL AREA RAMANAGAR DISTRICT-562109. (R2-IMPLEADED AS PER
ORDERDATED1608.2022) … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.S. ANANTHARAM FOR C/R SRI. J.
KANIKARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2-VC) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD DATED2112.2019 PASSED BY THE FIRST ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, BENGALURU IN ID NO.12/2016 AT ANNEXURE-S TO THE W.P. AND ETC. ***** - 18 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS IN WP NO.6972 OF2020BETWEEN: STANZEN LINKS (INDIA) LTD., 473-A/2, 12TH CROSS4H PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA BENGALURU-560 058 REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI.S.V. KULKARNI AGED ABOUT65YEARS ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.N.MURTHY, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI. SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE-VC) AND:
1. SRI. CHANDRAPPA S/O SRI. MUDDAPPA AGED ABOUT52YEARS R/AT NO.63, NATARAJ BUILDING MADAVARA POST DASANAPURA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH BENGALURU-562 123 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR M/S. TOYOTETSU INDIA (P) LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS STANZEN TOYOTETSU INDIA (P) LTD., TOYOTA TECHNO PARK PLOT NO.20, BUILDING NO.2, BIDADI INDUSTRIAL AREA RAMANAGAR DISTRICT-562109. (R2-IMPLEADED AS PER
ORDERDATED1608.2022) … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.S. ANANTHARAM FOR C/R SRI. J.
KANIKARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2-VC) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD DATED2112.2019 PASSED BY THE FIRST ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT BENGALURU IN ID NO.55/2016 AT ANNEXURE-S TO THE W.P. AND ETC. ***** - 19 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS IN WP NO.6973 OF2020BETWEEN: STANZEN LINKS (INDIA) LTD., 473-A/2, 12TH CROSS4H PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA BENGALURU-560 058 REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI.S.V. KULKARNI AGED ABOUT65YEARS ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.N.MURTHY, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI. SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE-VC) AND:
1. SRI. D. DAYANANDA S/O SRI. DASAPPA AGED ABOUT36YEARS, R/AT158 6TH CROSS1T 'D' CROSS PARVATHINAGARA, LAGGERE BENGALURU - 560 058 1A) SRI. DASAPPA S/O LATE SAMPIGERAYAPPA AGED ABOUT88YEARS SHETTARPALYA, URDIGERE HOBLI TUMKUR TALUK & DISTRICT (AMENDED VIDE
ORDERDATED1208.2021) 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR M/S. TOYOTETSU INDIA (P) LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS STANZEN TOYOTETSU INDIA (P) LTD., TOYOTA TECHNO PARK PLOT NO.20, BUILDING NO.2, BIDADI INDUSTRIAL AREA RAMANAGAR DISTRICT-562109. (R2-IMPLEADED AS PER
ORDERDATED1608.2022) … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.S. ANANTHARAM FOR C/R SRI. J.
KANIKARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2-VC) - 20 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD DATED2112.2019 PASSED BY THE FIRST ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, BENGALURU IN ID NO.71/2016 AT ANNEXURE-S TO THE W.P. AND ETC. ***** IN WP NO.6974 OF2020BETWEEN: STANZEN LINKS (INDIA) LTD., 473-A/2, 12TH CROSS4H PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA BENGALURU-560 058 REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI. S.V. KULKARNI AGED ABOUT65YEARS ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.N.MURTHY, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI. SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE-VC) AND:
1. SRI.V.B.PARAMESH S/O SRI BETTEGOWDA AGED ABOUT37YEARS, R/AT NO.24, SANJEEVININAGARA, 2ND MAIN, 2ND CROSS, VISHWANEEDAM POST HEGGANAHALLI, BENGALURU-560091 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR M/S. TOYOTETSU INDIA (P) LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS STANZEN TOYOTETSU INDIA (P) LTD., TOYOTA TECHNO PARK PLOT NO.20, BUILDING NO.2 BIDADI INDUSTRIAL AREA RAMANAGAR DISTRICT-562109 (R2-IMPLEADED AS PER
ORDERDATED1608.2022) … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.S. ANANTHARAM FOR C/R SRI. J.
KANIKARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2-VC) - 21 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD DATED2112.2019 PASSED BY THE FIRST ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT BENGALURU IN ID NO.65/2016 AT ANNEXURE-S TO THE W.P. AND ETC. ***** IN WP NO.6975 OF2020BETWEEN: STANZEN LINKS (INDIA) LTD., 473-A/2, 12TH CROSS4H PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA BENGALURU-560 058 REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI.S.V. KULKARNI AGED ABOUT65YEARS ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.N.MURTHY, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI. SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE-VC) AND:
1. SRI. SHIVAKUMAR P N S/O SRI.J.P.NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT49YEARS, R/AT NO.59/5, 16TH CROSS, 4TH BLOCK PEENYA1T STAGE BENGALURU-560058 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR M/S. TOYOTETSU INDIA (P) LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS STANZEN TOYOTETSU INDIA (P) LTD., TOYOTA TECHNO PARK PLOT NO.20, BUILDING NO.2, BIDADI INDUSTRIAL AREA RAMANAGAR DISTRICT-562109. (R2-IMPLEADED AS PER
ORDERDATED1608.2022) … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.S. ANANTHARAM FOR C/R SRI. J.
KANIKARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2-VC) - 22 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD DATED2112.2019 PASSED BY THE FIRST ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT BENGALURU IN ID NO.27/2016 AT ANNEXURE-S TO THE W.P. AND ETC. ***** IN WP NO.6976 OF2020BETWEEN: STANZEN LINKS (INDIA) LTD., 473-A/2, 12TH CROSS4H PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA BENGALURU-560 058 REP BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI.S.V. KULKARNI AGED ABOUT65YEARS ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.N.MURTHY, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI. SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE-VC) AND:
1. SRI. JAYARAMAIAH K S/O SRI KALASEGOWDA AGED ABOUT42YEARS, R/AT NO.29, 6TH MAIN, BALAJINAGARA OPP K.G.VIDYAMANDIRA THIGALAPALYA MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560058 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR M/S. TOYOTETSU INDIA (P) LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS STANZEN TOYOTETSU INDIA (P) LTD., TOYOTA TECHNO PARK PLOT NO.20, BUILDING NO.2, BIDADI INDUSTRIAL AREA RAMANAGAR DISTRICT-562109. (R2-IMPLEADED AS PER
ORDERDATED1608.2022) … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.S. ANANTHARAM FOR C/R SRI. J.
KANIKARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2-VC) - 23 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD DATED2112.2019 PASSED BY THE FIRST ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, BENGALURU IN ID NO.37/2016 AT ANNEXURE-S TO THE W.P. AND ETC. ***** IN WP NO.7031 OF2020BETWEEN: STANZEN LINKS (INDIA) LTD., 473-A/2, 12TH CROSS4H PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA BENGALURU-560 058 REP BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI.S.V. KULKARNI AGED ABOUT65YEARS ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.N.MURTHY, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI. SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE-VC) AND:
1. SRI. B.G. AJAY S/O SRI GIRIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT37YEARS, R/AT C/O D SRINIVAS, SHANTHINAGAR, BEHIND BASAVESWARA HIGH SCHOOL GANGANAHALLI, LAKSHMIPURA POST DASANAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU-562123.
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR M/S. TOYOTETSU INDIA (P) LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS STANZEN TOYOTETSU INDIA (P) LTD., TOYOTA TECHNO PARK PLOT NO.20, BUILDING NO.2, BIDADI INDUSTRIAL AREA RAMANAGAR DISTRICT-562109. (R2-IMPLEADED AS PER
ORDERDATED1608.2022) - 24 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.S. ANANTHARAM FOR C/R SRI. J.
KANIKARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2-VC) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD DATED2112.2019 PASSED BY THE FIRST ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT BENGALURU IN ID NO.30/2016 AT ANNEXURE-S TO THE W.P. AND ETC. ***** IN WP NO.7032 OF2020BETWEEN: STANZEN LINKS (INDIA) LTD., 473-A/2, 12TH CROSS4H PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA BENGALURU-560 058 REP BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI.S.V. KULKARNI AGED ABOUT65YEARS ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.N.MURTHY, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI. SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE-VC) AND:
1. SRI. SUNIL KUMAR R S/O SRI RAJASHWKAR K B AGED ABOUT36YEARS R/AT KALYA GATE, OLD WATER TANK ROAD MAGADI TOWN, RAMANAGARA BENGALURU - 560 120 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR M/S. TOYOTETSU INDIA (P) LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS STANZEN TOYOTETSU INDIA (P) LTD., TOYOTA TECHNO PARK PLOT NO.20, BUILDING NO.2 BIDADI INDUSTRIAL AREA - 25 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS RAMANAGAR DISTRICT-562109. (R2-IMPLEADED AS PER
ORDERDATED1608.2022) … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.S. ANANTHARAM FOR C/R SRI. J.
KANIKARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2-VC) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD DATED2112.2019 PASSED BY THE FIRST ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, BENGALURU IN ID NO.69/2016 AT ANNEXURE-S TO THE W.P. AND ETC. ***** IN WP NO.2525 OF2021BETWEEN: STANZEN LINKS (INDIA) LTD., 473-A/2, 12TH CROSS4H PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA BENGALURU-560 058 REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI.S.V. KULKARNI AGED ABOUT65YEARS ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.N.MURTHY, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI. SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE-VC) AND:
1. SRI. SOMASHEKARA S/O SRI SHIVANAGOWDA AGED ABOUT36YEARS, R/AT NO.14/1, 17TH CROSS, CHOWDESHWARINAGARA, LAGGERE BENGALURU-560058 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR M/S. TOYOTETSU INDIA (P) LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS STANZEN TOYOTETSU INDIA (P) LTD., TOYOTA TECHNO PARK PLOT NO.20, BUILDING NO.2, - 26 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS BIDADI INDUSTRIAL AREA RAMANAGAR DISTRICT-562109. (R2-IMPLEADED AS PER
ORDERDATED1608.2022) … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. J.S. ANANTHARAM FOR C/R SRI. J.
KANIKARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2-VC) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD DATED2112.2019 PASSED BY THE FIRST ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, BENGALURU IN ID NO.39/2016 AT ANNEXURE-S TO THE W.P. AND ETC. ***** IN WP NO.2526 OF2021BETWEEN: STANZEN LINKS (INDIA) LTD., 473-A/2, 12TH CROSS4H PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA BENGALURU-560 058 REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI.S.V. KULKARNI AGED ABOUT65YEARS ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.N.MURTHY, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI. SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE-VC) AND:
1. SRI. SRINIVASA T S/O SRI THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT51YEARS RESIDING AT05 KAVERINAGAR, 1ST CROSS, 1ST MAIN, PEENYA3D PHASE, BENGALURU56005.
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR M/S. TOYOTETSU INDIA (P) LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS STANZEN TOYOTETSU INDIA (P) LTD., TOYOTA TECHNO PARK - 27 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS PLOT NO.20, BUILDING NO.2, BIDADI INDUSTRIAL AREA RAMANAGAR DISTRICT-562109. (R2-IMPLEADED AS PER
ORDERDATED1608.2022) … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.S. ANANTHARAM FOR C/R SRI. J.
KANIKARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2-VC) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD DATED2112.2019 PASSED BY THE FIRST ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, BENGALURU IN ID NO.105/2016 AT ANNEXURE-S TO THE W.P. AND ETC. ***** THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING AND HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ON1309.2022, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER1 The petitioner-employer is before this Court seeking for quashing of the awards dated 21.12.2019 passed by the I Addl. Labour Court, Bengaluru in I.D. Nos.101, 90, 35, 64, 98, 76, 88, 108, 63, 103, 53, 17, 361, 73, 24, 12, 55, 71, 65, 27, 37, 30, 69, 39 and 105 of 2016.
2. In all the above matters, the petitioner is the employer, 1st respondent is the workman and 2nd - 28 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS respondent is stated to be the purchaser of the business of the petitioner.
3. The petitioner is stated to have begun the business on 12.04.1981 as a partnership firm manufacturing motor core laminations using power presses catering mainly to customers manufacturing AC and DC Motors, Alternators and Generators. In the year 1998, the petitioner entered into a joint venture with Toyota Iron Works, Japan and began the supply of automobile components to Toyota Kirloskar and other Tier 1 Toyota Group companies.
4. The petitioner has been entering into settlements with the Union periodically, the last and relevant settlement being entered into on 29.10.2014 was valid up to 31.03.2017.
5. The petitioner started undergoing losses in the year 2012-13, which continued to increase over the - 29 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS passage of time i.e. 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, etc. On account of the workers not cooperating, several contracts entered into by the petitioner with its customers could not be performed and the material delivered, which resulted in one of its major customers cancelling the contract and blacklisting the petitioner.
6. It is in that background, the petitioner was constrained to sell its land and building and machinery to M/s Stanzen Toyotestu India Private Limited-respondent No.2 for a sum of Rs.16,50,00,000/- in order to recoup the losses and to make payment of due amounts to various creditors of the petitioner.
7. On account of the proposed transfer in terms of sale agreement entered into between the petitioner and respondent No.2, the services of employees, including respondent No.1 in each of the petitions - 30 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS were terminated under Section 25FF of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [hereinafter referred to as ‘ID Act’]. by way of various termination letters which have been issued enclosing the details of the amounts due as on that date which includes three months salary in lieu of notice, 15 days of salary for every completed year of service, bonus for the year 2015-16 with proportionate amount till 30.06.2016, salary in lieu of unutilised leave till 30.06.2016, gratuity as per Gratuity Act, 1972.
8. Several employees had approached the Labour court, raising a dispute. In the said proceedings, 49 employees amicably settled the matter with the Management, and individual disputes were disposed of as settled between the parties upon the petitioner making certain payments to the said employees. However, 42 employees, including respondent No.1 did not settle the matter, and therefore, the matter came to be adjudicated.-. 31 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS9 The dispute filed by respondent No.1 and others came up before the I Addl. Labour Court, Bangalore, under Section 10(4) of ID Act. Pleadings being complete, evidence being led, the Labour court by its order dated 21.12.2019, allowed the dispute, partly ordering the reinstatement of 42 employees and payment of 25% back wages. It is aggrieved by the same that the petitioner is before this Court.
10. Sri.S.N.Murthy, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that:
10. 1. The Order passed by the I Addl. Labour court is improper and suffers from legal infirmities requiring the exercise of powers by this Court to set aside the said order. 10.2. It is on account of the employees/workmen not discharging their duties, not agreeing to work overtime, not agreeing to the delivery schedule - 32 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS fixed by the purchaser/customer of the petitioner, that the productivity of the petitioner kept dropping and petitioner incurred a loss to the tune of Rs.49,28,934/- for the year 2012- 13, Rs.1,91,27,633/- for the year 2013-14, Rs.3,69,65,206/- for the year 2014-15, so on and so forth and as on June 2016 had incurred total loss of Rs.11,21,29,459/-. 10.3. Apart from these losses, the non delivery of the products to the customers, resulted in cancellation of the contract and blacklisting of the petitioner, thus rendering the petitioner without any customer, as also huge accumulated losses. 10.4. In that background, no production happening at the petitioner’s factory, the petitioner agreed to transfer the undertaking by selling the immovable property consisting of land and - 33 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS building to M/s Stanzen Toyotetsu India Private Limited respondent No.2 herein for a total of Rs.16,50,00,000/- as regards which a total advance consideration of Rs.10,76,50,000/- has been received. The machineries were also agreed to be sold for a sum of Rs.3,97,50,000/- towards which an advance amount of Rs.3,90,00,000/- has been received. 10.5. From and out of the consideration which has been received, most of it has gone to off set losses and payments to the creditors. 10.6. On account of the various employees including respondent No.1 herein preventing the production, the purchaser had imposed a condition that the labour issues have to be resolved before completion of the transaction, without such resolution, the balance amount would not be paid.-. 34 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS107. The petitioner in view of transfer of the undertaking had terminated the services of the respondent by making payment of necessary wages in terms of Section 25FF of the ID Act which the labour ought to have received, since apart from the said amount, the petitioner is unable to make payment of any other amounts. 10.8. The petitioner cannot be expected to continue its business by suffering losses, more so when the workmen did not work properly, did not work overtime resulting in the supply contract being cancelled by the customer of the petitioner. 10.9. The original documents pertaining to the properties of the petitioner have been taken return of from the Corporation Bank who had lent money and handed over to the purchaser, the only formality remaining being the - 35 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS execution of sale deed and handing over of possession. The handover of possession being prevented by the workmen on account of they having sat in dharana in front of the factory. The agitation of the labour has given result to the above situation including stoppage of the manufacturing activity, in the meanwhile, the consent given by the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board has been surrendered, ESI Code issued by the ESI corporation has been surrendered, company has been deregistered under the Professional Tax Officer, electricity load on the factory has been reduced to the minimum i.e. earlier from 400 KVA to 25 KVA. 10.10. There is no manufacturing activity which is going on nor it can go on, hence, he submits that question of reinstatement of workers, let alone payment of back wages would not at all apply. Even if the workers were reinstated, - 36 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS there is no work which could be allotted to them since there is no contract in existence with the purchasers. 10.11. These facts have not been considered in the proper perspective by the Labour Court while passing the impugned order. 10.12. He relies upon the following decisions:
10. 13. Anakapalle Cooperative Agricultural & Industrial Society vs. workmen and others1, more particularly para Nos.1, 2 9 and 20 thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
1. The principal question which arises in this appeal has relation to the scope and effect of Section 25-FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (hereinafter called “the Act”). An industrial dispute between the appellant, Anakapalle (Cooperative Agricultural & Industrial Society, and the respondents, its workmen, was referred by the Governor of Andhra Pradesh for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad, under Section 1 AIR1963SC1489- 37 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS101)(d) of the Act on December 7, 1960. The respondents who were in the employment of Vizagapatnam Sugar and Refinery Ltd. (hereinafter called the company) claimed that they were entitled to re-employment in the said concern which had been purchased by the appellant, and since their demand for re-employment by the appellant was not accepted by it, they represented to the State Government that the said demand should be adjudicated upon by an Industrial Tribunal. That is how their demand for re-employment came to be referred under Section 10(1)(d).
2. It appears that the Company was an old Co., which manufactured sugar. Its business, however, did not result in profits, because the supply of sugar- cane was insufficient and the management apprehended that it could not face the losses from year to year, and so, it thought of shifting its business to Yerravaram in East Godavari where it anticipated that the supply of sugar-cane was assured. This attempt of the management, however, did not succeed because of the local cane growers. The local cane growers decided to form a cooperative society themselves and to purchase the concern of the Company. Accordingly, the appellant Society was formed and the sale transaction was effected between the said concern and the appellant on October 7, 1959. It was agreed between the appellant and the Company that the Company should pay retrenchment compensation to its employees and terminate their services leaving the appellant full freedom to choose its own employees. Accordingly, Rs 1,90,000 were paid by the Co., to its employees by way of retrenchment compensation. Before the completion of this transaction, however, the employees had suggested that their Union would itself purchase the concern, but the Union could not manage to effect the proposed sale transaction. It, however, suggested that the compensation of Rs 1,90,000 which the Company had to pay to its employees may be credited to the account of the Society and the employees paid the said amount by instalments, but this suggestion was not accepted - 38 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS and as a result of the sale transaction, the appellant took over the concern and employed such persons as it needed according to the recommendations of a Committee appointed by the appellant in that behalf. It appears that on the rolls of the Company, there used to be 800 workmen in all; of these 329 were permanent workmen, whereas 471 workmen joined the Company as seasonal workmen. The appellant has employed 678 employees in all, 248 of whom are permanent and the rest seasonal employees. Out of 248 employees who are engaged on a permanent basis, 220 are from amongst the employees of the Company and about 28 have been newly appointed. In the result, about 49 permanent employees and 103 seasonal employees of the Company have not been absorbed by the appellant and the demand which has been referred for adjudication in the present proceedings is that these permanent and seasonal employees should be absorbed by the appellant.
9. The question as to whether a purchaser of an industrial concern can be held to be a successor-in- interest of the vendor will have to be decided on a consideration of several relevant facts. Did the purchaser purchase the whole of the business?. Was the business purchased a going concern at the time of the sale transaction?. Is the business purchased carried on at the same place as before?. Is the business carried on without a substantial break in time?. Is the business carried on by the purchaser the same or similar to the business in the hands of the vendor?. If there has been a break in the continuity of the business, what is the nature of the break and what were the reasons responsible for it?. What is the length of the break?. Has goodwill been purchased?. Is the purchase only of some parts and the purchaser having purchased the said parts purchased some other new parts and started a business of his own which is not the same as the old business but is similar to it?. These and all other relevant factors have to be borne in mind in deciding the question as to whether the purchaser can be said to be successor-in-interest of the vendor for the - 39 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS purpose of industrial adjudication. It is hardly necessary to emphasize in this connection that though all the facts to which we have referred by way of illustration are relevant, it would be unreasonable to exaggerate the importance of any one of these facts or to adopt the inflexible rule that the presence or absence of any one of them is decisive of the matter one way or the other. If industrial adjudication were to insist that a purchaser must purchase the whole of the property of the vendor concern before he can be regarded as a successor-in-interest, it is quite likely that just an insignificant portion of the property may not be the subject-matter of the conveyance and it may be urged that the exclusion of the said fraction precludes industrial adjudication from treating the purchaser as a successor-in-interest. Such a plea, however, cannot be entertained for the simple reason that in deciding this question, industrial adjudication will look at the substance of the matter and not be guided solely by the form of the transfer. What we have said about the entirety of the property belonging to the vendor concern, will apply also to the goodwill which is an intangible asset of any industrial concern. If goodwill along with the rest of the tangible property has been sold, that would strongly support the plea that the purchaser is a successor-in-interest; but it does not follow that if goodwill has not been sold, that alone will necessarily show that the transferee is not a successor-in-interest. The decision of the question must ultimately depend upon the evaluation of all relevant factors and it cannot be reached by treating any one of them as of over-riding or conclusive significance.
20. Mr Chari then argued that though in terms Section 25-H may not apply to the present case, the general principle underlying the provisions of the said section should be invoked in dealing with the claim made by the respondents against the appellant. His argument is that too much emphasis should not be placed on the identity of the individual employer in dealing with the present question and he - 40 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS suggested that what is important to bear in mind is the identity of the undertaking which was run by the vendor before and which is the by the vendee now. If the undertaking is the same, there is no reason why the workmen should not be entitled to claim continuity of service in the said undertaking. In our opinion, this argument is misconceived. Once we reach the conclusion that in the case of a transfer of any undertaking the Legislature has by Section 25-FF provided for payment of compensation to the employees on the clear and distinct basis that their services have been terminated by such transfer, it is difficult to see how any questions of fair play or social justice would justify the claim by the respondents that they ought to be re-employed by the appellant. It is true that in cases falling under Section 25-F, workmen may get, retrenchment compensation and they may yet be able to claim re- employment under Section 25-H and in that sense, some workmen may get both retrenchment compensation and re-employment. That is no doubt the effect of reading Section 25-F and Section 25-H together. But it must be borne in mind that in the case of retrenchment, the undertaking continues and only some workmen are discharged as surplus and it is the problem of re-employment of this small number of discharged workman that is tackled by Section 25-H. Besides, under Section 25-H, a discharged workman may not be entitled to claim re- employment immediately after retrenchment or even soon thereafter. It is only if the employer who discharged him as surplus requires additional workmen that his opportunity may occur. In the present case, however, the position is entirely different. As soon as the transfer is effected under Section 25-FF, all employees are entitled to claim compensation, unless, of course, the case of transfer falls under the proviso; and if Mr Chari is right, these workmen who have been paid compensation are immediately entitled to claim re-employment from the transferee. This double benefit in the form of payment of compensation and immediate re- employment cannot be said to be based on any considerations of fair play or justice. Fair play and justice obviously mean fair play and social justice to - 41 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS both the parties. It would, we think, not be fair that the vendor should pay compensation to his employees on the ground that the transfer brings about the termination of their services, and the vendee should be asked to take them back on the ground that the principles of social justice require him to do so. In this connection, it is relevant to remember that the industrial principle underlying the award of retrenchment compensation is, as observed by this Court in the case of Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. Workmen [(1960) 2 SCR32 , “to give partial protection to workmen who are thrown out of employment for no fault of their own, to tide over the period of unemployment”; and in that sense, the said compensation is distinguishable from gratuity” Therefore, if the transferor is by statute required to pay retrenchment compensation to his workmen, it would be anomalous to suggest that the workmen who received compensation are entitled to claim immediate re-employment in the concern at the hands of the transferee. The contention that in cases of this kind, the workmen must get retrenchment compensation and re-employment almost simultaneously is inconsistent with the very basis of the concept of retrenchment compensation. We are, therefore, satisfied that the general principles of social justice and fair play on which this alternative argument is based, do not justify the claim made by the respondents. 10.14. Workmen of Brahmaputra Tea State v. Brahmaputra Tea Estate2 , more particularly para nos. 18 and 19 thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
18. We are in agreement with the contentions of the learned Solicitor-General that the view of the Labour 2 AIR1968SC514- 42 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS Court, that the first respondent is not liable to answer any of the claims of the workmen concerned, is perfectly justified. From the various facts, given above, it will clearly be seen that the order terminating the services of the workmen, was made on August 21, 1961, by the Superintendent of the Tea Gardens, under instructions from the Receiver appointed by the Jorhat court, in the mortgage suit. On October 5, 1961, the High Court had appointed a Receiver, for the Tea Gardens, as separate from the Tea Company, in the suit, Transfer company Suit No.7 of 1962. The order, referring the dispute to the Labour Court was made, by the Government, on July 27, 1962, The 1st respondent, admittedly, was not in the picture, on these various dates. It cannot also be stated, having due regard to the various recitals, contained in the sale deed, dated August 11, 1962, and considered, in the light of the principles, laid down by this Court, in Anakapalla Cooperative Agricultural & Industrial Society Ltd. v. Workmen [(1963) Supp 1 SCR730 that the first respondent is the successor-in-interest of the Tea Company. What was purchased, by the first respondent, was only the equity of redemption in a part of the assets of the Tea Company, in respect of which the Official Liquidator was still functioning. Therefore, the learned Solicitor-General is perfectly justified in his contention that the first respondent cannot be considered to be a successor-in-interest of the Tea company nor can he be considered to claim through the Receiver, or Liquidator. Even on the basis that the first respondent is considered to be a person, to whom the ownership of the undertaking has been transferred, it will be seen that the claims of the workmen will have to be considered, as against the Tea Company, in accordance with Section 25-FF of the Act, when its proviso cannot be invoked.
19. Learned counsel, for the appellant, has not been able to satisfy us that the transfer, in this case, in favour of the respondent, comes within the proviso to Section 25-FF. The appellants, as laid down by this Court, under the circumstances, in the decision referred to above, will not be entitled to claim - 43 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS reinstatement, as against the first respondent. Section 25-FF was first introduced in the Act, by the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1956 (61 of 1956); and, in its present form, it has been substituted, by the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1957 (Act 18 of 1957). Section 25-F was in force, on August 21, 1961, when the services of the workmen were terminated, and Section 25-FF had come into effect long before the purchase, by the first respondent of the Tea Gardens; and, we have already shown, that there is no liability, so far as the first respondent is concerned. Therefore, the first contention of Mr Gokhale, will have to be rejected. 10.15. Workmen of Karnataka Agro Proteins Ltd. v. Karnataka Agro Proteins Ltd3., more particularly para Nos.18 and 19 thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
18. In Anakapalle Co-operative Agricultural and Industrial Society Ltd. v. Workmen [AIR1963SC1489]. when the sale of an industrial concern and its effect on the services of the workmen came up for consideration, it was held (in paras 16 and
17) thus: “(16) The Solicitor-General contends that the question in the present appeal has now to be determined not in the light of general principles of industrial adjudication, but by reference to the specific provisions of Section 25FF itself. He argues, and we think rightly, that the first part of the Section postulates that on a transfer of the ownership or management of an undertaking the employment of workmen engaged by the said undertaking comes to an end, and it provides for the payment of 3 ILR1991Kar 244 - 44 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS compensation to the said employees because of the said termination of their services, provided, of course, they satisfied the test of the length of service prescribed by the Section. The said part further provides the manner in which and the extent to which the said compensation has to be paid. Workmen shall be entitled to notice and compensation in accordance with the provisions of Section 25F, says the Section, as if they had been retrenched. The last clause clearly brings out the fact that the termination of the services of the employees does not in law amount to retrenchment and that is consistent with the decision of this Court in Hariprasad's case, [1957 SCR121 (S) AIR1957SC121. The Legislature, however, wanted to provide that though such termination may not be retrenchment technically so-called, as decided by this Court, nevertheless, the employees in question whose services are terminated by the transfer of the undertaking should be entitled to compensation, and so, Section 25FF provides that on such termination compensation would be paid to them as if the said termination was retrenchment. The words “as if” bring out the legal distinction between retrenchment defined by Section 2(oo) as it was interpreted by this Court and termination of services consequent upon transfer with which it deals. In other words, the Section provides that though termination of services on transfer may not be retrenchment, the workmen concerned are entitled to compensation as if the said termination was retrenchment. This provision has been made for the purpose of calculating the amount of compensation payable to such workmen; rather than provide for the measure of compensation over again, Section 25FF makes a reference to Section 25F for that limited purpose, and, therefore, in all cases, to which Section 25FF applies, the only claim which the employees of the transferred concern can legitimately make is a claim for compensation against their employers. No claim can be made against their employers. No claim can be made against the transferee of the said concern.-. 45 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS (17) The scheme of the proviso to Section 25FF emphasises the same policy. If the three conditions specified in the proviso are satisfied, there is no termination of service either in fact or in law, and so, there is no scope for the payment of any compensation. That is the effect of the proviso. Therefore, reading Section 25FF as a whole, it does appear that unless the transfer falls under the proviso, the employees of the transferred concern are entitled to claim compensation against the transferor and they cannot make any claim for re- employment against the transferee of the undertaking. Thus, the effect of the enactment of Section 25FF is to restore the position which the Legislature had apparently in mind when Section 25FF was originally enacted on September 4, 1956. By amending Section 25FF, the Legislature has made it clear that if industrial undertakings are transferred, the employees of such transferred undertakings should be entitled to compensation, unless, of course, the continuity in their service or employment is not disturbed and that can happen if the transfer satisfies the three requirements of the proviso.
19. In Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. v. The Workmen [(1974) 4 SCC696: AIR1974SC1604]. it is reiterated that on a transfer of ownership or management of an undertaking, the employment of workmen engaged by the said undertaking comes to an end, and compensation is made payable because of such termination. In all cases to which Section 25FF applies, the only claim which the employees of the transferred concern can legitimately make is a claim for compensation against their employers. No claim can be made against the transferee of the said concern. 10.16. He submits that after 49 workmen had accepted the settlement, some more accepted the settlement, now leaving only 27 workmen - 46 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS who are respondent No.1 in each of these proceedings. 10.17. The Labour court ought to have considered the applicability of Section 25FF in relation to exigencies and the beneficial situation of the petitioner, instead the Labour court has come to a conclusion that unless there is misconduct followed by issuance of charges and domestic enquiry, no such termination of service could have been effected. 10.18. Labour Court has wrongly come to a conclusion that the closure of the undertaking when any aspect or dispute regarding closure would not come within the jurisdiction of the Labour court, same would have to be decided by the Industrial Tribunal which has such jurisdiction in terms of Category-10 of Schedule No.III to the ID Act. Therefore, the Labour Court has - 47 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS exceeded its jurisdiction and exercised jurisdiction not vested with it. 10.19. All the formalities having been completed including execution of agreement of sale, hand over of all original documents, receipt of part of the consideration, the transaction could not be completed only on account of dharana being conducted by the labour. Thus, the Labour court ought not to have come to the conclusion that the transaction is not complete and therefore there is no sale of undertaking. 10.20. The Labour court has not considered the Balance sheets which have been produced by the petitioner and has simply brushed aside the said evidence which was on record by stating that no acceptable evidence of the business exigencies or loss in business has been established, there is no better evidence than - 48 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS that of the audited balance sheet which would disclose both the income and expenses, as also losses. 10.21. The Labour Court has failed to appreciate the aspect of jurisdiction vested with it. The jurisdiction under Section 10(4-A) of ID Act is a limited jurisdiction insofar as individual disputes are concerned and does not extend to closure which has been considered by the Tribunal which would be a dispute in terms of Section 10(1)(c) of ID Act when conciliation proceedings ought to have been started and in the event of conciliation not having occurred, it was up to the State government to refer the matter to Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. 10.22. The Labour Court has misapplied itself by taking upon itself the jurisdiction vested under - 49 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS Schedule-III of ID Act with the Industrial Tribunal.
11. Sri.T.S.Anantharam, learned counsel for respondent No.2 would submits that:
11. 1. The award passed by the Labour court is proper and correct which has been passed after considering all oral and documentary evidence. 11.2. There is no transfer of ownership, as such to make Section 25FF of ID Act applicable, there is no sale deed which has been executed. It is only an agreement of sale which is inchoate and incomplete. 11.3. When the transfer itself has not been established, Section 25FF of ID Act would not apply and as such, the termination of services of respondent No.1 in all the above matters in - 50 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS the absence of such transfer is not permissible by invoking Section 25FF of the ID Act. 11.4. He relies upon Exhibit M-25 to 28 which had been produced before the Tribunal to contend that the time for transfer has been extended from time to time which establishes that the transfer is not complete. 11.5. He relies upon the cross examination of Management witness who has clearly stated that he is not aware in what manner the transfer has occurred, whether it is by application of law or otherwise. 11.6. The surrender of Factory licence, ESI Code, consent of Pollution Control Board, etc. have been done unilaterally by the petitioner. There was no need for it to surrender the same. The unilateral action on part of the petitioner cannot - 51 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS enure to their benefit at the cost of respondent- workmen. 11.7. Section 25FF of ID Act not being applicable than the only manner in which the workmen could be terminated is if there is misconduct after issuing articles of charge, holding disciplinary enquiry, affording an opportunity to the workman to place his say on record, unilateral termination of services under Section 25FF in the absence of transfer is not justified. 11.8. ID Act consists of different provisions which are applicable for each circumstances viz., Section 25FF, 25FF, 25M, 25N, 25(O), all of which operate in different facts and circumstances and it is only upon the requirements of the said provision being fulfilled, that further action under the said provisions could be taken.-. 52 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS119. Insofar as jurisdiction of the Labour court, he submits that the disputes raised are individual disputes to each workman since separate termination order is issued to each of the workman making Section 10(4-A) of ID Act applicable. 11.10. In terms of Section 10(4-A) of ID Act, a challenge to discharge, dismissal or retrenchment is maintainable by a workman so discharged, dismissed or retrenched. The dispute having been raised within six months of the termination of services, the same complies with the requirement of Section 10(4-A) of ID Act and as such, there is no requirement of raising a industrial dispute which comes within the purview of Schedule-III to be referred to the Industrial Tribunal by the Government. 11.11. He relies upon the followings decisions: - 53 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS1112. Oswal Agra Furnace Ltd and Another vs. Oswal Agro Furane Workers Union and others4, more particularly para nos. 14, 15, 16, 17 and 21 thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
14. A bare perusal of the provisions contained in Sections 25-N and 25-O of the Act leaves no manner of doubt that the employer who intends to close down the undertaking and/or effect retrenchment of workmen working in such industrial establishment, is bound to apply for prior permission at least ninety days before the date on which the intended closure is to take place. They constitute conditions precedent for effecting a valid closure, whereas the provisions of Section 25-N of the Act provides for conditions precedent to retrenchment; Section 25-O speaks of procedure for closing down an undertaking. Obtaining a prior permission from the appropriate Government, thus, must be held to be imperative in character.
15. A settlement within the meaning of Section 2(p) read with sub-section (3) of Section 18 of the Act undoubtedly binds the workmen but the question which would arise is, would it mean that thereby the provisions contained in Sections 25-N and 25-O are not required to be complied with?. The answer to the said question must be rendered in the negative. A settlement can be arrived at between the employer and workmen in case of an industrial dispute. An industrial dispute may arise as regard the validity of a retrenchment or a closure or otherwise. Such a settlement, however, as regard retrenchment or closure can be arrived at provided such 4 (2005)1 LLJ151- 54 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS retrenchment or closure has been effected in accordance with law. Requirements of issuance of a notice in terms of Sections 25-N and 25-O, as the case may, and/or a decision thereupon by the appropriate Government are clearly suggestive of the fact that thereby a public policy has been laid down. The State Government before granting or refusing such permission is not only required to comply with the principles of natural justice by giving an opportunity of hearing both to the employer and the workmen but also is required to assign reasons in support thereof and is also required to pass an order having regard to the several factors laid down therein. One of the factors besides others which is required to be taken into consideration by the appropriate Government before grant or refusal of such permission is the interest of the workmen. The aforementioned provisions being imperative in character would prevail over the right of the parties to arrive at a settlement. Such a settlement must conform to the statutory conditions laying down a public policy. A contract which may otherwise be valid, however, must satisfy the tests of public policy not only in terms of the aforementioned provisions but also in terms of Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act.
16. It is trite that having regard to the maxim "ex turpi causa non oritur actio", an agreement which opposes public policy as laid down in terms of Sections 25-N and 25-O of the Act would be void and of no effect. The Parliament has acknowledged the governing factors of such public policy. Furthermore, the imperative character of the statutory requirements would also be borne out from the fact that in terms of sub-section (7) of Section 25- N and sub-section (6) of Section 25-O, a legal fiction has been created. The effect of such a legal fiction is now well-known. [See East End Dwellings Co. Ltd. V. Finsbury Borough Council [(1951) 2 All ER587 Om Hemrajani vs. State of U.P. and Another (2005) 1 - 55 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS SCC617and M/s Maruti Udyog Ltd. vs. Ram Lal & Ors. 2005 (1) SCALE585.
17. The consequences flowing from such a mandatory requirements as contained in Sections 25-N and 25-O must, therefore, be given full effect. The decision of this Court in P. Virudhachalam (supra) relied upon by Mr. Puri does not advance the case of the Appellant herein. In that case, this Court was concerned with a settlement arrived at in terms of Section 25-C of the Act. The validity of such a settlement was upheld in view of the first proviso to Section 25-C of the Act. Having regard to the provisions contained in the first proviso appended to Section 25-C of the Act, this Court observed that Section 25-J thereof would not come in the way of giving effect to such settlement. However, the provisions contained in Sections 25- N and 25-O do not contain any such provision in terms whereof the employer and employees can arrive at a settlement. CONCLUSION :
21. For the reasons aforementioned, we do not find any merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. 11.13. Mackinon Mackenzie & Company Ltd vs. Mackinnon Employees Union5– more particularly para no.35.
35. The statutory provisions contained in Section 25FFA of the I.D. Act mandate that the Company should have issued the intended closure notice to the Appropriate Government should be served notice atleast 60 days before the date on which it intended 5 (2015) 2 LLJ151- 56 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS to close down the concerned department/unit of the Company. As could be seen from the pleadings and the findings recorded by the Industrial Court, there is a categorical finding of fact recorded that there is no such mandatory notice served on the State Government by the appellant-Company. The object of serving of such notice on the State Government is to see that the it can find out whether or not it is feasible for the Company to close down a department/unit of the Company and whether the concerned workmen ought to be retrenched from their service, made unemployed and to mitigate the hardship of the workmen and their family members. Further, the said provision of the I.D. Act is the statutory protection given to the concerned workmen which prevents the appellant-Company, from retrenching the workmen arbitrarily and unreasonably & in an unfair manner. The cumulative reading of the Statement of Reasons, the retrenchment notice served on the concerned workmen, the pleadings of the appellant- Company and in the absence of evidence on record to justify the action of retrenchment of concerned workmen on the alleged closure of the department/unit of the appellant-Company is shown as bonafide. However, the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the High Court on this aspect of the case cannot be held to be bad in law by this Court in exercise of its Appellate Jurisdiction in this appeal. 11.14. Based on the above he submits that the petition is liable to be dismissed.
12. When the matter was pending, since the purchaser had not been made party to the proceedings, an application came to be filed to implead the purchaser - 57 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS as respondent No.2 which came to be allowed and the purchaser was permitted to be brought on record as party respondent.
13. Sri.J.Kanikaraj, learned counsel appearing for the purchaser submitted that 2nd respondent is in no way connected with the dispute that existed between the petitioner and respondents. The petitioner was a vendor of 2nd respondent who was supplying certain auto components. 2nd respondent agreed to purchase the land and building of the petitioner and has made payments of certain amounts of money but the petitioner has failed to deliver the machinery and/or handover vacant possession of the property. It is only on account of the petitioner pleading for more time that the performance under the various agreements was extended and as such, sale deed has not been executed.-. 58 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS14 Heard Sri.S.N.Murthy, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners, Sri.T.S.Anantharam, learned counsel for respondent No.1/workman and Sri.J.Kanikaraj, learned counsel for respondent No.2. perused papers.
15. The points that would arise for determination of this court are:
1. Whether the termination of services of an employee/workman by a individual notice could be raised as a dispute before the Labour Court in terms of Section 10(4-A) of the ID Act or merely because the services of numerous workmen have been terminated, would a industrial dispute have to be raised under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which can only be considered by the Industrial Tribunal?.
2. What are the requirements for applicability of Section 25FF of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947?.
3. Are the requirements of Section 25FF of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 complied with in the present cases?. - 59 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS4 Does the order of the Labour Court suffer from any legal infirmity requiring this Court to intercede?.
5. What order?.
16. I answer the above points as under; 17. Answer to point no.1: Whether the termination of an employee/workman by a individual notice could be raised as a dispute before the Labour Court in terms of Section 10(4-A) of the ID Act or merely because the services of numerous workmen have been terminated, would a industrial dispute have to be raised under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which can only be considered by the Industrial Tribunal?. 17.1. Section 10(4-A) of ID Act reads as under: “10. Reference of disputes to Boards, Courts or Tribunals: (4A) Notwithstanding anything contained in the section 9C and in this section, in the case of a dispute falling within the scope of section 2A, the individual workman concerned may, within six months from the date of communication to him of the order of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination or the date of commencement of the Industrial Disputes (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 1987, whichever is later, apply, in the prescribed manner, to the Labour Court for adjudication of the dispute and the Labour Court dispose of such application in the same manner as a dispute referred under sub-section (1).-. 60 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS Note.--An application under sub-section (4A), may be made even in respect of a dispute pending consideration of the Government for reference, on the date of commencement of the Industrial Disputes (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 1987.
17.2. Section 10(1) of ID Act reads as under: (1) Where the appropriate Government is of opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, it may at any time, by order in writing,-- (a) refer the dispute to a Board for promoting a settlement thereof; or (b) refer any matter appearing to be connected with or relevant to the dispute to a Court for inquiry; or (c) refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with, or relevant to, the dispute, if it relates to any matter specified in the Second Schedule, to a Labour Court for adjudication; or (d) refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with, or relevant to, the dispute, whether it relates to any matter specified in the Second Schedule or the Third Schedule, to a Tribunal for adjudication: Provided that where the dispute relates to any matter specified in the Third Schedule and is not likely to affect more than one hundred workmen, the appropriate Government may, if it so thinks fit, make the reference to a Labour Court under clause (c): Provided further that where the dispute relates to a public utility service and a notice under section 22 has been given, the appropriate Government shall, unless it considers that the notice has been frivolously or vexatiously given or that it would be inexpedient so to do, make a reference under this sub-section - 61 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS notwithstanding that any other proceedings under this Act in respect of the dispute may have commenced: Provided also that where the dispute in relation to which the Central Government is the appropriate Government, it shall be competent for that Government to refer the dispute to a Labour Court or an Industrial Tribunal, as the case may be, constituted by the State Government. 17.3. Second Schedule of ID Act reads as under: MATTERS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF LABOUR COURTS1 The propriety or legality of an order passed by an employer under the standing orders; 2. The application and interpretation of standing orders; 3. Discharge or dismissal of workmen including reinstatement of, or grant of relief to, workmen wrongfully dismissed; 4. Withdrawal of any customary concession or privilege; 5. Illegality or otherwise of a strike or lock-out; and 6. All matters other than those specified in the Third Schedule. 17.4. Third Schedule ID Act reads as under: MATTERS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL1 Wages, including the period and mode of payment; 2. Compensatory and other allowances; - 62 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS3 Hours of work and rest intervals; 4. Leave with wages and holidays; 5. Bonus, profit sharing, provident fund and gratuity; 6. Shift working otherwise than in accordance with standing orders; 7. Classification by grades; 8. Rules of discipline; 9. Rationalisation; 10.Retrenchment of workmen and closure of establishment; and 11. Any other matter that may be prescribed. 17.5. In terms of Section of Section 10(4A) in the event of any dispute falling within the scope of Section 2A of the ID Act, the individual workman concerned may within six months from the date of communication of the order of discharge, dismissal or retrenchment apply in the prescribed manner to the Labour Court for adjudication of the dispute. Section 2-A reads as under: - 63 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS2. Dismissal, etc., of an individual workman to be deemed to be an industrial dispute.-- (1) Where any employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches, or otherwise terminates the services of an individual workman, any dispute or difference between that workman and his employer connected with, or arising out of, such discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute notwithstanding that no other workman nor any union of workmen is a party to the dispute. (2)Notwithstanding anything contained in section l0, any such workman as is specified in sub-section (1) may, make an application direct to the Labour Court or Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute referred to therein after the expiry of forty-five days from the date he has made the application to the Conciliation Officer of the appropriate Government for conciliation of the dispute, and in receipt of such application the Labour Court or Tribunal shall have powers and jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute, as if it were a dispute referred to it by the appropriate Government in accordance with the provisions of this Act and all the provisions of this Act shall apply in relation to such adjudication as they apply in relation to an industrial dispute referred to it by the appropriate Government. (3) The application referred to in sub-section (2) shall be made to the Labour Court or Tribunal before the expiry of three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of service as specified in sub-section (1). 17.6. A perusal of Section 2A would indicate that where any employer discharges, dismisses or retrenches or otherwise terminate the services of an individual workman, any difference or dispute between the workman and employer - 64 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute. Thus, a dispute which will be referred under Section 10(4A) being covered with Section 2A that disputes are individual in nature to a particular workman. 17.7. A perusal of Section 10(1) of ID Act would indicate that where the appropriate government is of the opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, then in such an event there would arise four different options. Firstly, the same could be referred to a Board for promoting a settlement, secondly appropriate government can refer any matter connected with or relevant to the dispute to Court for enquiry, thirdly it should refer the dispute or any matter relating to that specified in Second Schedule to Labour Court. Fourthly, any dispute which comes within the Third Schedule, could be referred to an Industrial Tribunal.-. 65 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS178. The matters relating to those specified in Second Schedule would have to be referred to Labour Court. The matters specified in Third Schedule would have to be referred to Industrial Tribunal. 17.9. A perusal of Second and Third Schedule would indicate that these are matters which relate to workman as a whole and are not relatable to a claim of a particular workman. Thus, it is Section 10(4A) of the ID Act which will cater to individual workman and not Section 10(1) or 10(1-C) of the ID Act. 17.10. The dispute referred to under Section 10(1) relatable to those specified under Second and Third Schedule being applicable to a large number of workman, it would be required that the same be assessed and reference made either to the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal - 66 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS as the case may be in terms of Section 10(1) of the ID Act. 17.11. Hence, I answer point No.1 by holding that termination of an individual employee/workman by a individual notice, a dispute could be raised by such individual workman in terms of Section 10(4-A) of the ID Act.
18. ANSWER TO POINT NO.2: What are the requirements for applicability of Section 25FF of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947?. 18.1. Section 25FF of ID Act reads as under:
25. F. Compensation to workmen in case of transfer of undertakings.- Where the ownership or management of an undertaking is transferred, whether by agreement or by operation of law, from the employer in relation to that undertaking to a new employer, every workman who has been in continuous service for not less than one year in that undertaking immediately before such transfer shall be entitled to notice and compensation in accordance with the provisions of section 25F, as if the workman had been retrenched: Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a workman in any case where there has been a change of employers by reason of the transfer, if- - 67 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS (a) the service of the workman has not been interrupted by such transfer; (b) the terms and conditions of service applicable to the workman after such transfer are not in any way less favourable to the workman than those applicable to him immediately before the transfer; and (c) the new employer is, under the terms of such transfer or otherwise, legally liable to pay to the workman, in the event of his retrenchment, compensation on the basis that his service has been continuous and has not been interrupted by the transfer.]. 18.2. Section 25FF is a special provision relating to compensation to be paid to a workman on account of transfer of undertaking. For such transfer to have occurred, the ownership or management of undertaking ought to have been transferred or it may be by way of agreement or operation of law. In such event, every workman who is in continuous service for not less than one year in that undertaking shall be entitled to notice and compensation in accordance with the provisions of Section 25F as if the workman had been retrenched. Thus, - 68 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS Section 25FF provides for a situation where the ownership or the management could be transferred when the workman has to be paid compensation in accordance with Section 25F of the Act. 18.3. A reading of the above provision would indicate the usage of the word “transferred”, that would essentially mean that the transfer is complete and sale deed ought to have been executed. 18.4. In the present case what has been executed is only an agreement of sale and the execution of the Sale Deed has been extended. The basic requirement for the applicability of Section 25FF of the ID Act would be that there has to be transfer of undertaking. 18.5. The transfer could either be by an agreement or by operation of law. The transfer of an - 69 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS undertaking is not one which is required to be compulsorily registered. It is only a sale of immovable property which would be required to be registered. That is the reason why under Sub-section (1) to Section 25FF of ID Act the usage is transfer by way of agreement. Thus, an agreement by itself in my considered opinion would satisfy the requirements of Section 25FF of ID Act. 18.6. Hence, I answer point No.2 by holding that the ownership or management of an undertaking can be transferred by an agreement and the said agreement is not required to be registered under the Indian Registration Act, 1908.
19. ANSWER TO POINT NO.3: Are the requirements of Section 25FF of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 complied with in the present cases?. 19.1. The Labour Court considered and answered all disputes raised by each workman separately, - 70 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS but however had clubbed them all together in the award. However, the management being one and the same, the distinction being sought to be made out now that each one is different is unsustainable. By various proceedings filed by the petitioners in the Labour Court, the workmen sought for setting aside the dismissal order of each of the petitioners with a direction to the company to reinstate the petitioners with continuity of service with full back wages and all consequential benefits. 19.2. The cause of action for having approached the Labour Court is stated to have arisen on 27.06.2016 when the employer terminated the services of each of the workman from 27.06.2016. 19.3. The petitioner had in the said letter dated 27.06.2016 contended that the petitioner was - 71 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS constrained to sell the Factory and building to generate funds to satisfy the obligation to pay its liabilities, such as employees legal compensation, Bank liabilities and payment to creditors. 19.4. The petitioner had invoked Section 25FF and contended that consequent to transfer of ownership, the services of the respondent was not required and as such, terminated their services with immediate effect. In the said letter, it is stated that each of the workman was paid three months pay in lieu of notice, 15 days of salary for every completed year of service, bonus for the year 2015-16, salary in lieu of unutilized leave and gratuity as per the Gratuity Act, 1972 and enclosed the same vide a cheque. The workman, however did not accept the cheque or encash the cheque, when such encashment is not made, the petitioner - 72 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS cannot rely upon the issuance of cheque. Be that as it may, the same is an accepted position of fact. 19.5. Section 25FF is reproduced herein above. A perusal of the said provision would indicate that wherever any ownership or management of undertaking is transferred, every workman who has been in continuous service but not less than one year provide a undertaking, Upon such undertaking being given would be entitled for notice and compensation in accordance with Section 25F of ID Act. 19.6. It is therefore clear that Section 25FF would only apply where there is a transfer of undertaking or the ownership or management of undertaking is transferred. Section 25F deals with condition precedent to retrenchment of a - 73 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS workman. Section 25F is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
25. . Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until— (a) the workman has been given one month' s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice: (b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay 2 [for every completed year of continuous service]. or any part thereof in excess of six months; and (c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government 1[or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette].. 19.7. In terms of Section 25F, the workman is required to be given one month’s notice or wages in lieu thereof, compensation equivalent to 15 days average pay for every year of - 74 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS continuous service and notice to be issued to the appropriate government. 19.8. Thus, in terms of Section 25FF, whenever there is a transfer of ownership or management of undertaking, a workman whose services are being terminated, a new employer or purchaser not continuing the employment of the workman shall be entitled to the amounts as mentioned under Section 25F of the ID Act. 19.9. A perusal of Section 25FF does not as such indicate any particular reason for transfer but speaks of only transfer and the effect of such transfer. 19.10. The contention of Sri.T.S.Anantharam, learned counsel for respondent No.1 is that there is no transfer as such which has occurred inasmuch as there is only an agreement of sale which has - 75 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS been executed and is continued to be extended from time to time, the agreement of sale not having culminated in a sale deed cannot be said to be a transfer. Therefore, the petitioner cannot derive or try and take benefit under Section 25FF of the ID Act. 19.11. A perusal of the documents which have been produced and marked in evidence would indicate that the petitioner company has undergone a loss over the last several years and accumulated losses as on June 2016 stood at Rs.11,21,29,459/-. The reasons which are attributed by the petitioner are that the petitioner could not deliver the products to its customers on time due to non cooperation of the labour, the labour being absent and as such the customers of the petitioner cancelled the orders, imposed late delivery charges, etc. It is on this basis Sri.S.N.Murthy, learned Senior - 76 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS counsel for the petitioner would submit that the losses having accumulated to an extent of Rs.13 crores, there being no customer for the petitioner to run the company/factory, the petitioner had agreed to sell the property, plant and machinery to respondent No.2. This he submits is permissible under Section 25FF of ID Act. 19.12. Though the sale deed not been executed, he submits that substantial amount of consideration has been received. The original documents of the property have been given to respondent No.2. the agreement has been acted upon by various covenants being fulfilled by each of the parties. The only reason why the sale deed has not been executed is due to dharana being held by respondent No.1 in all these petitions and not permitting the purchaser to enter the premises.-. 77 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS1913. It is in that background that respondent No.2 had imposed a specific condition that any dispute with the labour/workman would have to be resolved prior to execution of necessary final documentation between the petitioner and respondent No.2. 19.14. There seems to be considerable force and credence which is required to be attributed to said submissions. The audited balance sheets are clear in the loss which have been caused is more than Rs.13 crores. For a small unit like that of the petitioner, such huge loss which have accumulated year on year is a big one. The petitioner not having the capital to run the company, however had contracts which needed to be serviced and equipment delivered to the purchaser within a given timeframe. This is also not achieved on account of the workmen not cooperating by working overtime and finishing - 78 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS the goods for delivery which resulted in termination of the contract with the petitioner and the consequent blacklisting. 19.15. The manner in which the aforesaid events have occurred leaves me in no doubt that there was no purpose which would have been served by the management of the petitioner continuing with the industry which had suffered huge losses and would continue to suffer losses, more so when there is no customer available for the petitioner, the sole customer having cancelled the agreement. 19.16. It is in that background the petitioner had agreed to sell the immovable property, plant and machinery to respondent No.2. It is the respondent No.2 who had imposed a condition that until the labour issues are sorted out, the respondent No.2 would not complete the - 79 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS transaction. In fact the evidence shows that when respondent No.2 tried to visit the factory and take some of dyes, machinery etc, respondent No.2 was prevented from doing so by the workmen in all these matters by the persons who have been arraigned as respondent No.1 in all these petitions. No fault also can be found with the conduct of respondent No.2 in not completing the transaction on account of various disputes in existence between the petitioner and the workmen. The fact however remains that substantial portion of the consideration has been made payment of to the petitioner. 19.17. It is also not in dispute that making use of these amounts, the petitioner has made payment of due amounts to the Banks and other creditors and has also made payments to other workmen/employee Welfare measures - 80 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS like ESI, PF, etc. There are no dues owned by the petitioner to any of those organisations. 19.18. It is in pursuance of such payments that the licences and/or registrations which had been granted by various authorities were cancelled since there was no purpose served by continuing such licences and registrations by making payment to those organisations without being involved in any manufacturing activity. 19.19. In the above background, the facts that emerge with clarity are: i) The petitioner has undergone tremendous losses; ii) The customer of the petitioner have cancelled the contract and blacklisted the petitioner; iii) There is no customer of the petitioner as of now; iv) There is no business which is in operation; and - 81 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS v) All the licences and registrations have been cancelled. 19.20. When above is the situation, the transaction not being completed solely on account of non cooperation, as also on account of the conduct on part of the workmen, I am of the considered opinion that it cannot be said that the transaction between the petitioner and respondent No.2 is either sham or a benami transaction which can be said to be fictitious as contended by Sri.T.S.Anantharam. 19.21. As answered by me in point No.2 above, the transfer of undertaking and transfer of land would have to be treated differently. Insofar as transfer of land is concerned, a sale deed is required to be executed and registered but insofar as transfer of business is concerned, there is no requirement for registration of a sale deed in relation thereto an agreement by - 82 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS itself would suffice. In the present case, the agreement provides for transfer of the undertaking, which has also been acted upon. The Principles of Section 53A and or Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act would not be applicable. It is only the transfer of land which has been delayed on account of the aforesaid circumstances. 19.22. On a specific enquiry, Sri.J.Kanikaraj, learned counsel has categorically stated that the moment gherao by the workmen is lifted, the moment respondent No.2 can take possession of the property, the transaction would be completed and the balance amounts paid. Respondent No.2 has waited patiently and its patience is reaching an end. 19.23. Both the counsels have surprisingly relied on the very same citation in Anakapalle - 83 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS Cooperative Agricultural & Industrial Society1 (supra), that case in my considered opinion stands on a different footing. 19.24. That was a case where the sugar factory was proposed to be sold. Though the workmen wanted to purchase and came forward for such purchase, transaction could not be completed, hence the society purchased the industry. The company which owned the factory had made payment of all the due amounts in terms of Section 25FF read with Section 25F to its workmen. 19.25. The issue raised was as regards re-employment of the workmen by the Society upon its purchase. The factory having 800 workmen in all, the Society had re-employed only 678 leaving out several employees and in that background the question posed before the court - 84 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS was whether the purchaser of an industrial concern can be held to be a successor in interest of the vendor having an obligation to reemploy all the workmen in the industry. 19.26. The Hon’ble Apex Court after considering the entire matter came to a conclusion that upon transfer being effected under Section 25FF of ID Act, all employees would be entitled to claim compensation and not seek for reemployment since payment of compensation as also right to reemployment would be a double benefit which was being demanded by the workmen. Hence the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the workmen must get only retrenchment compensation and not reemployment. The said decision would only apply to the present case, there being no question raised in the present proceedings as regards reemployment.-. 85 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS1927. The Hon’ble Apex Court was categorical in its finding that whenever transfer occurred under Section 25 FF, compensation would have to be paid. There was no finding or enquiry made in the said matter as regards the transfer, reasons for transfer and/or the validity of transfer. Applying the said decision to the present case, it is clear that if the transfer is held to be complete between the petitioner and respondent No.2, then the workmen would be entitled for compensation in terms of Section 25FF read with Section 25F of the ID Act. 19.28. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the situation having arisen on account of alleged non- cooperation of the workmen in not manufacturing and delivering products in time so as to keep the petition company going the workmen cannot take advantage of their own - 86 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS wrongs to contend that they are required to be continued in employment when there is no business to the said factory. 19.29. The workmen being aware of the competitive market and being aware of the customer of the petitioner requiring products within a given timeframe, they ought to have cooperated with the petitioner to achieve the production and supply products. Knowing fully well that the petitioner has suffered losses to an extent of Rs.13 crores, the workmen ought to have helped the petitioner in getting over the losses. Not having done that, the petitioner was left with no option but to sell its business which it has done. 19.30. Though several allegations have been made as regards the transaction being benami, etc, none of it have been proved by the workmen.-. 87 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS1931. The Labour court has, in my considered opinion, come to a wrong conclusion that there is no document produced to establish the losses incurred by the company in the teeth of audited balance sheets having been produced. The Labour Court has also not appreciated the reasons why the transaction could not be completed viz., that of the workmen preventing such completion by gheroing and not permitting respondent No.2 to enter the premises. 19.32. The other reasoning given by the Labour court being that the termination of services occurred prior to the settlement period coming to an end is again completely misconceived inasmuch as when a factory makes losses during the settlement period, it cannot be expected that factory continue to work under loss and the management invest funds only to make payment of salaries to the workmen.-. 88 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS1933. To further test the situation in the event of there being an earthquake or a natural disaster destroying the factory during the period of settlement, I am of the considered opinion that the same would not automatically result in continuation of services in any manner as appreciated by the Labour Court. 19.34. The Labour court further misapplied itself by referring to various other provisions of the ID Act viz., 25M, 25N and 25O. Those provisions apply under different circumstances and not in the present case. 19.35. I am therefore of the considered opinion that when the termination of services is under Section 25FF of the ID Act, there is no question of requirement of misconduct on part of the workmen or issuance of a charge sheet or disciplinary enquiry, etc. The termination of - 89 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS services under Section 25FF is on account of transfer of the undertaking simplicitor, there being no requirement of any enquiry against the workmen. 19.36. As aforesaid, the Labour Court has misapplied itself and confused itself by reading together Section 25FF, 25F, 25M, 25N and 25-O of ID Act. The Labour Court would be well advised to treat all these issues differently and consider the same separately unless there is a connection which could be established by cogent evidence. 19.37. Applying the principles laid down in Anakapalle Cooperative Agricultural & Industrial Society’s1 case, the only right that the workmen would get upon a transfer of undertaking in terms of Section 25FF of ID Act is the compensation which has been paid by the - 90 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS petitioner. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the requirement of Section 25FF have been complied with in the present facts and circumstances.
20. ANSWER TO POINT NO.4: Does the order of the Labour Court suffer from any legal infirmity requiring this Court to intercede?. 20.1. While dealing with answer to point No.3, I have also dealt with the legal infirmities in the reasoning of the Labour Court. As observed above, the Labour Court has misapplied itself not considered the relevant evidence/facts and has passed an order which is not sustainable in law. As such, the said order is required to be quashed.
21. ANSWER TO POINT NO.5: what order?. 21.1. The petitions are allowed.-. 91 - WP No.6795 OF2020AND CONNECTED MATTERS212. The awards dated 21.12.2019 passed by the I Addl. Labour Court, Bengaluru in I.D. Nos.101, 90, 35, 64, 98, 76, 88, 108, 63, 103, 53, 17, 361, 73, 24, 12, 55, 71, 65, 27, 37, 30, 69, 39 and 105 of 2016 are quashed. Sd/- JUDGE ln