Karnataka High Court
The Management Of Hmt Watches ... vs Mr. D.S.Shankar on 13 April, 2023
Bench: Alok Aradhe, Vijaykumar A Patil
-1-
WA No.3895 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF APRIL 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT APPEAL NO.3895 OF 2019 (L-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. THE MANAGEMENT OF HMT WATCHES LIMITED
WATCH FACTORY IV,
Digitally DEVARAYAPATNA
signed by TUMKUR -572103
RUPA V REP. BY ITS PRESENT GENERAL TECHNICAL
Location: High MANAGER (CSD) AND I/C
Court of
Karnataka HMT WATCHES LIMITED
CSD BUILDING JALAHALLI
BENGALURU-560013.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. JAGADISH BALIGA N, ADV.,)
AND:
1. MR. D.S. SHANKAR
SON OF SHIVANNA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
SINCE DEAD BY LRS.
1(a) SMT. GANGAMBIKE
AGED 54 YEARS
W/O LATE D.S. SHANKAR.
1(b) SRI. SANTHOSH D.S
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O LATE D.S. SHANKAR.
1(c) SRI. LOHITH
AGED 26 YEARS
S/O LATE D.S. SHANKAR.
-2-
WA No.3895 of 2019
ALL ARE R/O DEVARAPATHNA
KUDIGERE HOBLI
DEVARAPATHNA POST
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 103.
2. MR. RUKMANGADAIAH
SON OF LATE MUDALAGIRIYAPPA
SINCE DEAD BY LR'S.
2(a) SMT. NAGASHREE T.R.
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
DAUGHTER OF LATE RUKMANGADAIAH
RESIDENT OF SAPTAGIRI NILAYA
9TH CROSS, KANAKAMBARA ROAD
GOKULA EXTENSION,
KYATHASANDRA POST
DEVARAYAPATNA,
TUMAKURU - 572 104.
3. MR. V.B. SURENDRA BABU
SON OF V.B. BRAHMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
FORMERLY WORKING WITH
HMT WATCH FACTORY IV,
TUMKUR-572103.
4. MR. GANGADHARAIAH
SON OF LATE H. GANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
FORMERLY WORKING WITH
HMT WATCH FACTORY IV,
TUMKUR-572103.
5. MR. A. KRISHNAMURTHY
SON OF APPANNA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
FORMERLY WORKING WITH
HMT WATCH FACTORY IV
TUMKUR-572103.
6. MR. DODDARANGAIAH A.A.
SINCE DEAD BY LR.
-3-
WA No.3895 of 2019
6(a) SMT. RADHA .D
AGED 32 YEARS
D/O LATE DODDARANGAIAH A.A.
6(b) SMT. PADMA
AGED 26 YEARS
D/O LATE DODDARANGAIAH A.A.
BOTH ARE R/O SHANTHINAGAR
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 103.
7. MR. MUJEEBULLA
SON OF K.M. ABDUL LATHIF
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
FORMERLY WORKING WITH
HMT WATCH FACTORY IV, TUMKUR-572103.
8. MR. MALLESHAPPA S.D.
DEAD BY LRS.
8(a) SMT. PUTTAMMA
AGED MAJOR
WIFE OF LATE MALLESHAPPA.
8(b) SRI. T.M. SHASHIDHAR
AGED MAJOR
SON OF LATE MALLESHAPPA.
8(c) SRI. T.M. SRIDHAR
AGED MAJOR
SON OF LATE MALLESHAPPA.
No.8(a) TO (c) ARE
RESIDING AT OPPOSITE TO CARMEL SCHOOL
GOKULA EXTENSION, KYATASANDRA POST
TUMAKURU-572004.
9. MR. A.C. PUTTAPPA
SON OF CHIKARANGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
FORMERLY WORKING WITH
HMT WATCH FACTORY IV, TUMKUR-572103.
-4-
WA No.3895 of 2019
10. MR. SHIVANNA
SON OF RUDRE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
FORMERLY WORKING WITH
HMT WATCH FACTORY IV
TUMKUR-572103.
11. MR. V.J. HANUMANTHAPPA
SON OF JOOLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
FORMERLY WORKING WITH
HMT WATCH FACTORY IV
TUMKUR-572103.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V.S. NAIK, ADV., FOR R2-R5, R6(a & b), R7, R8 (a-c) &
R9-R11 & ALSO FOR R1 (a-c)
SMT. MANJULA N. KULKARNI, ADV., FOR R2(a))
---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
26/06/2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE,
PRINCIPAL BENCH AT BENGALURU IN WP NO.30605/2011 AND
CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AS PRAYED FOR
AND GRANT SUCH AND FURTHER RELIEF DEEMS FIT UNDER
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE INCLUDING THE COST
THROUGHOUT.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-5-
WA No.3895 of 2019
JUDGMENT
This intra Court appeal emanates from an order
dated 26.06.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge by
which the writ petition preferred by the appellant has
been dismissed and the order dated 19.04.2011 passed
by the Labour Court on an application under Section
33(c)(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Act') has been upheld.
2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly
stated are that respondents were employees of HMT
Watches Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Company'). The respondents / workmen were placed
under suspension by an order dated 13.07.1994 on the
charges of committing theft. Thereafter, on 31.01.2001,
the Company introduced a voluntary retirement
scheme. The workmen applied under the voluntary
retirement scheme. Their applications were entertained
and on 31.03.2001 itself, suspension of the workmen
WA No.3895 of 2019
was revoked and they were relieved. Subsequently, in
the criminal case which was instituted against the
workmen, they were acquitted on 08.05.2003.
Thereafter, on 01.08.2007 the workmen filed a petition
under Section 33(c)(5) of the Act claiming various
amounts which were due to them. The Labour Court,
by an order dated 19.04.2011, negated the claim of
workmen in respect of amounts but only held them
entitled to payment of balance of subsistence allowance
during the period from 01.07.1994 till 31.03.2001. The
Company challenged the aforesaid order in a writ
petition before the learned Single Judge. The learned
Single Judge, by an order dated 26.06.2019 inter alia
held that the claim made by workmen for payment of
25% of the subsistence allowance is genuine. It was
further held that the Company did not hold any
departmental enquiry and in the criminal case, the
workmen were acquitted. It was also held that mere
delay in filing the petition under Section 33(c)(5) of the
WA No.3895 of 2019
Act by itself does not defeat the claim of the workmen.
In the result, the writ petition was dismissed.
3. Learned counsel for the Company, while inviting
the attention of this Court to the affidavit filed by the
workmen on 31.03.2001, submitted that workmen in
the aforesaid affidavit have stated that they shall not
claim any arrears due to them from the Company after
acceptance of application seeking voluntary retirement.
It was further submitted that the workmen are bound
by the statement made on oath contained in the
affidavit which was submitted to the Company. It is
further submitted that the learned Single Judge ought
to have appreciated that even though the workmen were
acquitted on 08.05.2003, however, application was filed
on 01.08.2007.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondent for the workmen has submitted that the
WA No.3895 of 2019
order of revocation of suspension is silent as to how the
period of suspension of the workmen shall be treated. It
is further submitted that from the affidavit, no express
intention of the workmen can be gathered . that were
revocation to claim 25% of the subsistence allowance. It
was further submitted that since no disciplinary enquiry
was held against the workmen and in the criminal case,
the workmen were acquitted and since the suspension
of the workmen was revoked, they are entitled to
payment of 25% of the subsistence allowance, it is
urged that the order passed by the learned Single Judge
does not call for any interference.
5. We have considered the submissions made on
both sides and have perused the record. It is not in
dispute that no disciplinary enquiry was held against
the workmen. It is also not in dispute that the workmen
was acquitted in criminal case on 08.05.2003.
Admittedly, the workmen were suspended on
WA No.3895 of 2019
13.07.1994 and their order of suspension was revoked
on 31.03.2001. However, order of revocation of
suspension is silent as to how period of suspension of
workmen has to be treated. From the affidavit on behalf
of the workmen, no express intention to relinquish their
right to claim 25% of the subsistence allowance can be
inferred. The claim of the workmen which has been
entertained by the Labour Court is only with regard to
payment of subsistence allowance for a period during
which they were placed under suspension i.e.
01.07.1994 till 31.03.2001. Therefore, in the peculiar
facts of the case, mere delay by itself would not defeat
the claim of the workmen to prosecute their remedy
under Section 33(c)(5) of the Act.
6. For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find
any ground to differ with the view taken by the learned
Single Judge.
- 10 -
WA No.3895 of 2019
7. At this stage, we are apprised that amount due
to the workmen has still not been paid to them. It is
therefore, directed that appellant shall make payment of
the amount to the workmen / legal representatives of
workmen within a period of four months from today.
With the aforesaid direction, the appeal stands
disposed of.
Consequently, pending interlocutory application is
also disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
RV
