Karnataka High Court
M/S. Karnataka Power Corporation ... vs Kptcl Hangami Nowkarara Sangha on 27 September, 2018
Author: L.Narayana Swamy
Bench: L.Narayana Swamy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY
WRIT PETITION No.38694 OF 2014 (L-TER) &
WRIT PETITION Nos.56028-56075/2014
Between:
1. M/s. Karnataka Power Corporation Limited
A Company incorporated under Companies Act
1956, having its office at Sheshadri Road
Anand Rao Circle, Gandhinagar
Benglauru-560 009.
2. M/s. Karnataka Power Transmission
Corporation Limited
(Formerly known as Mahatma Gandhi
Hydro Electric Works)
VVNL Jog, Shimoga District-577435
Represented by its
Executive Engineer (Electrical). ... Petitioners
(By Ms. Surabhi Srinivas, Advocate for
Sri. Hariskrishna.S.Holla, Advocate)
And:
KPTCL Hangami Nowkarara Sangha
Jog Falls, Shimoga-577 435
Represented by its Secretary, Philip ... Respondent
(By Smt. Sheela Krishna, Advocate)
***
2
These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 &
227 of the Constitution of India praying to call for records
on the file of I Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru passéd
in REF No.86/2006 & set aside the award dated
18th November, 2013 as null & void vide Annexure-A.
These Writ Petitions coming on for Orders this day,
the Court made the following:
ORDER
The Government of Karnataka by its Order LD 782 LID 2003 dated 7.8.2003 has referred an industrial dispute between the Management of KEB, presently called as KPTCL, and its 81 casual labourers under Section 10(1)(C) of the Industrial Disputes Act for adjudication of following points of dispute :
1. Is the management of KPTCL justified in terminating the service of 81 casual labourers whose names are mentioned in the annexure to the reference order w.e.f. 1.12.1982?
2. If not to what relief the said casual labourers are entitled?
The learned Presiding Officer of the I Additional Labour Court, Bangalore on 18.11.2013 allowed the claim statement partly with costs which is fixed at Rs.1,000/-. 3 And the second party-Management is not justified in refusing or terminating the work of 49 workmen out of the 81 workmen who have raised the dispute and rejected the prayer of remaining 32 workmen for reinstatement. Further it held that the second party is directed to reinstate 49 workmen into service and that these persons are not entitled to backwages. However, they are entitled to the benefits as per the terms of the settlement marked at Ex.W8 dated 23.2.1983. It is this order which is impugned herein by the Management.
2. However, an application had been filed by the counsel for the petitioner-Management praying to substitute M/s.Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited as M/s.Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. as the same has been substituted vide Gazette Notification dated 15.12.2006 and that inadvertently, the writ petitions was pursued by M/s.KPTCL even though the Management of erstwhile Vishweshwara Vidyuth Nigama Ltd. was taken over by Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. by virtue of the said gazette notification and therefore, the 4 liability, if any, arises by virtue of the award dated 18.11.2013 passed by the Labour Court in Ref No.86/2013 has to be complied by the Company proposed to be substituted i.e. petitioner company viz. M/s.Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. Bangalore. The said application was allowed by this Court vide order dated 5.3.2018 permitted the petitioner to substitute the proposed petitioner and directed to file amended cause title.
4. Now the previous counsel for the petitioner-KPTCL submits that after the amalgamation, Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. (KPC) will be the petitioner and notice should have been gone to said Corporation.
5. Submission of the said counsel is examined.
6. When there is amalgamation, as cited supra, there should have been a specific clause or discussion in respect of the pending cases. In this case, neither the KPTCL is now ready to continue prosecuting the case nor the KPC is coming forward to prosecute the case.
As per the impugned order passed by the I Additional Labour Court Bangalore, there is a direction to reinstate 49 workers out of 81 workers. Consequently, the records 5 reveal that they have been reinstated into service. There is also an order passed by this Court on 12.10.2017 with a direction to reinstate 49 workmen. As per this order, they are working since 2017.
In view of the above circumstances, I do not find any good reason to keep this matter pending and it is liable to be disposed of.
The petitions stands disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE rs