Managing
Director, Karnataka Forest Development Corporation Ltd Vs. Workmen of Karnataka
Pulpwood Ltd. & Ors [2007] Insc 1046 (11 October 2007)
S.B.
Sinha & Harjit Singh Bedi
[CA
4802 of 2007 arising out of SLP (C) No.21054 of 2006] (Arising out of SLP (C)
No.19783 of 2005) S.B. Sinha, J.
1.
Leave granted.
2.
These appeals are directed against judgments and orders dated 22.6.20005 and
19.07.2006 passed by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court whereby and whereunder
the judgment and order dated 7.2.2005 passed by a learned Single Judge of the
said High Court dismissing writ Petition Nos. 1651-1685 of 2005 filed by the
respondents herein claiming their absorption in the appellant-Corporation.
3.
Indisputably the private-respondents herein were the workmen of Karnataka
Pulpwood Ltd. (the company). It was a Government company. It was running at a
loss. Karnataka Pulpwood Ltd. is a joint sector company of Karntaka Forest
Development Corporation Ltd. and and Karntaka Harihar Polyfibres Ltd., the
share capital was fixed in the ratio of 51:49.
4. The
Government stood as a guarantor in respect of the loans to be raised by the
joint sector company from the commercial banks. A lease was granted in favour
of the said company. Karnataka Pulpwood Ltd. which is said to be a subsidiary
of the appellant-Corporation faced hostility from the local people for various
reasons. A public interest litigation was also filed before this Court against
lease of forest lands, inter alia, on the ground that the same was violative of
the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. This
Court granted an order of stay regarding possession of the said leasehold
property. Protracted legal battle adversely affected the commercial viability
of KPL project. Great difficulty was also experienced in the matter to of
obtaining loans from banks for raising of maintenance of plantations.
A
question, therefore, arose as to whether the said company should be wound up.
By reason of a decision taken by the State of Karnataka on or about 24.10.1991, it was, inter alia, directed :
(a)
To wind-up Karnataka Pulpwood Ltd., a Joint Sector Company. The company is
directed to take steps in this connection following prescribed procedure under
Companies Act, 1956.
(b)
That all the Assets and Liabilities of the Karnataka Pulpwood Ltd. and any
guarantee given by the Government to Karnataka Pulpwood Ltd. for raising loans
are transferred to Karnataka Forest Development Corporation Ltd.
(c)
Karnataka Forest Development Corporation is directed to settle obligations
contained in promoters an agreement amicably through the dialogue between the
promoters or in terms of arbitration clause in case of any dispute between the
parties.
(d)
Karnataka Forest Development Corporation is directed to absorb the staff of
Karnataka Pulpwood Ltd. in Karnataka Forest Development Corporation.
(e) To
return the enquiry to M/s. Harihar Polyfibers Ltd. The question regarding
payment of interest on equity has to be negotiated and settled between the promoters
viz., Karnataka Forest Development Corporation and M/s. Harihar Polyfibers.
5. An
attempt was made to wind up the said industrial undertaking in terms of the
provisions of the Companies Act. On or about 16.11.1993, the State accorded its
approval for merger of the said company with the appellant herein in place of
closure of the former. It is, however, not known as to whether formalities
required to be complied with for merger of the said companies under the
Companies Act were undertaken or not. Apparently, such an exercise was
undertaken. A proposal was also mooted that a voluntary retirement scheme be
floated in regard to the employees of the company and in its meeting held on
27.1.2003, it was resolved :
The
matter was also discussed in the meeting of the High Power Committee on Public
Sector Undertakings under the chairmanship of the Chief Secretary on
20.01.2993. It was pointed out that in the HPC a decision has been taken to
close the KPL revising the earlier decision of merger with KFDC. 6. Yet
again, a Government order was issued on 02.01.2004 directing :
1.
Close down KPL.
2.
Extend financial help to KPL in order to extend VRS to all its employees. Those
employees who do not opt for VRS should be terminated as per Industrial
Disputes Act.
3. KPL
should obtain necessary permission from the Governments Labour Dept. for
closure under Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act.
7.
Pursuant thereto and in furtherance thereof, an application was filed for
closure of Karnataka Pulpwood Ltd. before the State Government.
Respondent-Union
was also given an opportunity of hearing in the proceedings initiated therefor.
It was, inter alia, observed :
All
the employees of KPL are ready and willing to accept the VRS as proposed by the
Management of KPL in its letter dated 14.02.2003 and the VRS scheme revised upto
31.03.2003 as per G.O. of DPAR (RPE) dated 10.08.2001 provided other conditions
are fulfilled It was opined :
Therefore,
the union pleads to either to reject/dismiss the application of the KPL or to
defer its consideration till after the absorption of the KPL staff in the KFDC
or at least after the judgment of the Honble High Court in WP
No.39406-455/2003. In the alternative, refer the application to the Tribunal
for adjudication in the interest of justice.
As
against the above, objections of the unions, the advocate appearing for the
management has stated that the majority of the objections raised by the union
are regarding absorption of the KPL staff to that of KFDC. These points are not
relevant in the matter of closure and the union can raise all these points
before the appropriate authority, as this authority is not concerned to the
absorption of KPL employees. Therefore, the management has requested to over
rule the objections and to accord sanction for closure as requested by the
management as unless the closure is decided the absorption of KPL employees
cannot be decided.
The
reasons advanced by the management for closure of their company the objections
of the union and counter objections of the management have been examined by the
Government. As could be seen from the various objections raised by the union,
which are all relating to the absorption of workers in the KFDC, voluntary
retirement etc. , the Government considers that these issues or objections of
the union are not relevant to the request of the closure or non-closure of the
company. The union has not refuted anywhere in their objection about the losses
incurred non- functionality of the company for the purpose, which was
established. The union has also not questioned the genuineness and adequacy of
the reasons advanced by the management. Though the union has pointed out that
the closure is not justified and there is no adequacy and genuineness in the
reasons, but it has not substantiated as to how the closure is not justified
and how the reasons are not adequate and genuine. The issues to be considered
for closure of the company are status of the company, its viability to pursue
its objective etc. The union has not made out its strong case on these issues.
Therefore, Government after taking into consideration all aspects of the matter
has decided to allow the application of the management and to grant permission
for closure as required under Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Accordingly
the following orders.
G.O.
No.LD559 IDG 2004, Bangalore dated 23.11.2004 In the circumstances explained in
the preamble, the permission of the Government is hereby accorded as required
under Section 25-O of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to the management of M/s.
Karnataka
Pulpwood Ltd., Bangalore to close down the above industrial
undertaking as proposed by them.
8.
Aggrieved by and dissatisfied therewith, the respondents filed a writ petition
before the High Court of Karnataka which was marked as Writ Petition
Nos.1651-1685 of 2005. In the said writ petitions, the following prayers were made
:
a)
Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction
quashing the order bearing reference LD559, IDG 2004, Bangalore dated
23.11.2004 issued by the 2nd respondent, a true copy of which is produced and
marked as Annexure-J since the same is unjust, arbitrary and opposed to the
scheme of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
b)
issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction,
directing the respondents 1, 3 and 4 to immediately absorb the services of the
petitioners 2 to 35 in KFDC pursuant to Government Order dated 24.10.1991 vide
Annexure-B and also representations submitted by the 1st Petitioner Union vide
Annexure-E to H since non-consideration of the same by the respondents 1, 3 and
4 is unjust, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
of India.
9. It
appears that another writ petition was filed by another union , i.e., Karnataka
Pulpwood Ltd. Employees Union (Regd) which was marked as Writ Petition
Nos.3520-3533 of 2005. A learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka by
a judgment and order dated 28.1.2005 held as under :
The
learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that all the employees are not
interested in VRS scheme, some of them are interested in taking closure
compensation and absorpition in the services of the third respondent and
further submits that the petitioners have no objection for the closure, but
their rights have to be properly protected and the benefits available under law
have to be properly ensured.
In
view of the submission made at the Bar, it is directed that the second
respondent is permitted to close the undertaking by 7.2.2005. The first
respondent shall act upon the proposal of VRS scheme within three months from
the date of closure. The petitioners those who are willing to opt VRS can apply
for VRS otherwise they can place the request for absorption in the services of
the third respondent and closure compensation to be payable to the petitioners
who are eligible for closure compensation in accordance with law and to be
payable as on the date of closure.
Accordingly,
the writ petition is disposed of.
10.
When the writ petition filed by the respondents herein came up for
consideration before another Bench, it by a judgment and order dated 7.2.2005 held
:
I
respectfully agree with the conclusion reached by this Court in the aforesaid
writ petitions. Hence, these writ petitions are disposed of in terms of the
order dated 28th
January, 2005 in WP
Nos.3520- 3533/2005 (S-R).
The
petitioners herein are at liberty to opt either for VRS scheme or for closure
compensation with request for absorption in Karnataka Forest Development
Corporation Ltd. on or before 28th February, 2005.
11.
Both, the Management as also the workmen, preferred intra court appeals thereagainst.
A Division Bench by an order dated 22.6.2005 directed the Principal Secretary
of the Government to inform the Court as to whether the Government order dated
24.10.1991 on which reliance had been placed by the respondent-workmen was
subsisting or not. It, however, does not appear from the records that any
response thereto was made. When the writ appeals preferred by the parties hereto
came up for consideration before the Division Bench, it allowed the appeals
filed by the workmen and dismissed the appeals preferred by the Management stating
:
What
is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the Corporation is that the
Government order dated 24.10.1991 stands superseded by the subsequent decision
taken by the State Government. He referred to the averments made in the written
statement filed by the Corporation before the learned Single Judge and we find
that the Corporation has nowhere stated that the said order stands superseded.
Be that as it may, no such order of the State Government was produced before
the learned Single Judge which could show that the earlier order dated
24.10.1991 stood withdrawn or superseded. The learned State counsel, on the
other hand, on receipt of instructions from the Secretary of the Department who
is present in Court, informs us that the Government order dated 24.10.1991 has
not been superseded. This obviously puts an end to the controversy. This being
so, we are clearly of the view that the appellants are entitled to be absorbed
in the service of the Corporation and that the learned single Judge was in
error in not issuing such a direction.
It
was, however, noticed :
We
may, however, make it clear that the prayer made in the writ petition for
quashing the order of the Government granting permission to close down the
company was not pressed before us and the same stands rejected.
12.
Mr. Kailash Vasdev, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, would
submit that the matter in regard to closure of the company being no longer in
dispute, the High Court committed a serious error in directing absorption of
the workmen of the company by the appellant.
According
to Mr. Vasdev, the financial implication of the said order comes to about Rs.60
lac per year and the losses suffered by it would not be borne by the
Government.
13. We
may, however, place on record that during the pendency of this SLP, a meeting
was held on 21.6.2006 in regard to the claim of absorption of the workmen
concerned wherein it was resolved :
Agreeing
with the views of Sri Sogadu Shivanna MLA and others, the Honble Minister
instructed that the following action be taken immediately :
1)
Necessary action to be initiated to withdraw the SLP filed before the Honble
Supreme Court on the High Court order dated 22.6.2005 by following necessary
procedure without taking much time for the same and after this action to be
initiated to absorb these 81 employees.
Action: Managing Director, KFDC Ltd. And
Principal Secretary, FEE
2)
Arrears of differential salary on account of release of increments and D.A. be
released to the employees at an early date.
Action: Managing Director KFDC Ltd. and
Principal Secretary, FEE
3) Any
dues to be settled to VRS optees such as difference in ex-gratia etc. be
settled without giving scope for the KPL employees to approach Court of law
again.
Action: Managing Director, KFDC Ltd. and
Principal Secretary, FEE
All
the officers present in the meeting assured their full co-operation in solving
these issues in a time bound manner.
14. We
are informed by Mr. Sanjay Hegde, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the Government of Karnataka that the question of absorption of the retrenched
employees in the appellant-Corporation is pending before the Cabinet. We do not
intend to make any observation as regards consequence arising therefrom.
15.
Mr. Naveen R. Nath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents
would submit that the State of Karnataka as also the appellant Corporation had
all along been representing to the workmen that services of those employees who
have been working under the company would be absorbed by the Corporation and in
that view of the matter, this Court should not interfere with the impugned
judgment. It was furthermore contended that the State as also the Corporation
had allowed the order of the learned Single Judge dated 28.1.2005 passed in
Writ Petition No.3530-3533 of 2005 to attain finality and in that view of the
matter, there is absolutely no reason as to why the other workmen would not be
treated at par with them.
16. It
is unfortunate that the State of Karnataka as also Appellant- Corporation did not specifically take one stand or
the other. It has been prevaricating its stand from stage to stage. The
relationship between the company and the respondents being employer and workmen
is governed by the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The
Management of an industrial undertaking is entitled to take recourse to closure
of its undertaking in terms of the provisions of the said Act itself. Section
25-O of the said Act lays down the procedure for closing down an undertaking.
Once
the permission had been given by the State Government, all consequences would
ensue. In terms of sub-section (8) of Section 25-O, all the workmen would be
entitled to receive compensation which shall be equivalent to 15 days
average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof
in excess of six months. Section 25-S provides that in relation to a closure of
an undertaking governed by Chapter V-B, the provisions of Sections 25-B, 25-D,
25-E, 25-F, 25-G, 25-H and 25 would also apply. Section 25-J provides that the
provisions of Chapter VA shall have effect notwithstanding anything
inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force.
Indisputably in the event an undertaking is closed down, the only right which
accrues in favour of the workmen is to obtain compensation as provided for. We
may notice that sub-section (4) of Section 25O provides that an order of the
appropriate Government is final and binding on the parties.
17.
Before the Division Bench of the High Court, as we have noticed hereinbefore,
the order of the State Government directing prior permission for effecting
closure of the industrial undertaking has not been questioned.
In
fact, even the learned Single Judge had made observations to the effect that
the closure may be affected. Having regard to the fact that rights of the
workmen flow from the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, a writ court
could not have issued any other direction. One of the questions which had
arisen for consideration before the Division Bench was as to whether the order
of the State Government dated 24.10.1991 subsists. For considering the said
question, it was not necessary for the High Court to ascertain the view point
of the State. In the year 1991, a decision was taken not to close down the
undertaking of the company. The 1991 decision was modified by a subsequent
order that the undertakings also as that of the company are merging with each
other. No order of merger has been passed. No decision by a competent authority
under the Companies Act had been taken.
Indisputably,
the appellant and the company have not merged. In absence of any valid order of
merger of two different entities, evidently the relationship of employer and
employee between the respondents and the said company, as had been obtaining,
continued. Furthermore, as soon as the closure of an undertaking became
effective, it is trite that the said relationship ceased to exist.
18.
The right of the workmen, therefore, was only to receive the amount of
compensation. If the State is not in a position to take upon itself the financial
burden of the appellant-Corporation for appointing the concerned workmen;
direction to continue their services could not be issued. There cannot be any
doubt whatsoever that the said order dated 24.10.1991 has been superseded by
necessary implication. Both merger of two undertakings and the closure of one
undertaking do not stand together. If the workmen, therefore, think that any
other or further right has accrued to them in terms of the purported assurance
given by the State, it may take recourse thereto before an appropriate forum
but a writ petition was not maintainable.
19.
For the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that impugned judgment cannot
be sustained. It is set aside accordingly. The appeals are allowed. No costs.
Back
Pages: 1 2
