Karnataka High Court
Hmt Limited vs Smt. K. J. Vijayamma on 4 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:25536-DB
WA No. 168 of 2024
C/W CCC No. 226 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
WRIT APPEAL NO. 168 OF 2024 (S-R)
C/W
CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 226 OF 2024
IN WA No.168/2024
BETWEEN:
1. HMT LIMITED
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,
HMT BHAVAN, NO. 59,
BELLARY ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 032.
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
Digitally HMT MACHINE TOOLS LTD.,
signed by HMT BHAVAN, NO. 59,
SUMA B N BELLARY ROAD,
Location: BANGALORE-560 032.
High Court of
Karnataka
3. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF HEAVY INDUSTRIES,
UDYOG BHAVAN,
NEW DELHI-110 001.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. UNNIKRISHNAN M.,ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:25536-DB
WA No. 168 of 2024
C/W CCC No. 226 of 2024
AND:
SMT. K. J. VIJAYAMMA
D/O. K. N. KRISHNA PILLAI,
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,
RETIRED GENERAL MANAGER
(TECHNOLOGY), R/AT NO. 10,
10TH MAIN, 1 BLOCK, HMT LAYOUT,
VIDYANARAYANAPURA,
BENGALURU-560 097.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. MUBARAK BEGUM S.,ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO i)ALLOW THE ABOVE
APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANTS THEREBY SETTING ASIDE
THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP
NO.18409/2018 DATED 30/10/2023 AND THEREBY DISMISS THE
SAID PETITION.
IN CCC NO. 226/2024
BETWEEN:
SMT. K J VIJAYAMMA
D/O K N KRISHNA PILLAI
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
(RETIRED GENERAL MANAGER
(TECHNOLOGY), R/AT NO 10
10TH MAIN, 1ST BLOCK
HMT LAYOUT, VIDYARANYAPURAM
BENGALURU - 560 097.
...COMPLAINANT
(BY SRI. MUBARAK BEGUM S.,ADVOCATE)
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:25536-DB
WA No. 168 of 2024
C/W CCC No. 226 of 2024
AND:
1. HMT LIMITED
REPRSETNED BY ITS
CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR
SRI RAJEEV SINGH
HMT BHAVAN, NO 59
BELLARY ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 032.
2. SRI.RAJEEV SINGH
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
HMT BHAVAN No.59
BELLARY ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 032.
3. SRI.KAMARAN RIZVI
SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HEAVY INDUTRIES AND
PUBLIC SECTOR ENTERPRISES
UDHYOG BHAVAN
NEW DELHI.
...ACCUSED
(BY SRI. UNNIKRISHNAN M.,ADVOCATE)
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE
CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, PLEASED TO HOLD THAT THE
ACCUSED NO.2 IS GUILTY OF CONTEMPT OF DISOBEYING THE
ORDER PASSED BY THIS HONBLE COURT IN WP NO.18409/2018
(S-R) DATE 30.10.2023 AND PUNISH THEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH
LAW. POST CCC BEFORE DIVISION BENCH FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING
WRIT APPEAL AND CCC COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER/JUDGMENT WAS
DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:25536-DB
WA No. 168 of 2024
C/W CCC No. 226 of 2024
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA)
Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. K. Arvind Kamath with
learned advocate Mr. M. Unnikrishnan for appellant Nos.1 and 2,
learned Central Government Counsel Mr. Jagadish G. Kumbar for
appellant No.3 and learned advocate Smt. S. Mubarak Begum for the
respondent.
2. The present appeal preferred under Section 4 of the Karnataka
High Court Act, 1961 is directed against the judgment and order dated
30.10.2023, thereby learned Single Judge allowed the petition of the
respondent-original petitioner directing the Managing Director of HMT
Limited-respondent No.2 therein to revise the scales of pay of the
petitioner as in the same way extended to the employees of HMT
International Limited with effect from 01.01.1997 till the date of her
superannuation.
2.1 It was further directed to re-fix the pension pursuant to the
revision of scales of pay and thereafter, to compute the arrears and
make payment of arrears to the petitioner.
NC: 2024:KHC:25536-DB
2.2 The crux of the reasoning of learned Single Judge in allowing
the petition and extending the benefit of revision of pay scales to the
petitioner was that the petitioner served under respondent No.1-HMT
Limited which was one of the subsidiary companies of HMT
International Limited. Learned Single Judge took the view that since
the employees of one subsidiary company of HMT International
Limited were given the revised pay benefit, the same could not have
been refused to the petitioner who belonged to the other subsidiary
company.
3. Looking into the prayers made in the petition, it was prayed by
the petitioner to direct the respondents to pay retirement benefits on
the basis of 1992 pay revision and 1997 pay revision with arrears by
fixing the pay of the petitioner accordingly, with interest at the rate of
18%. It was next prayed to direct the respondents to pay pensionary
benefits also by fixing the pension on basis of the revised pay scales.
3.1 The petitioner was appointed in the year 1975 in the
establishment of HMT Limited, which was a parent company then. It
came to be bifurcated into more than one subsidiary companies
subsequently. The petitioner's services were assigned to HMT Limited
and she retired on 30.06.2005 from the said company.
NC: 2024:KHC:25536-DB
4. While allowing the petition, learned Single Judge has relied on
the decision of this Court in Writ Petition No.2175 of 2022 dated
04.07.2023, wherein it was held as under:
"... In that view of the matter, I am of the view that, the
bifurcation of the respondent-company was in the year
2000 and if the subsidiary Company is extending benefits
to its employees since 01.01.1997 same benefit cannot be
denied to the employees of other unit and the said
exercise to retired employees from implementing the
benefit from 2014 has no relevance in so far as the
classification made under Article 14 of the Constitution of
India."
5. It could be immediately pointed out by learned Senior Advocate
appearing for the appellants that the decision in Writ Petition No.2175
of 2022 was the subject matter of Writ Appeal No.955 of 2023. The
said writ appeal came to be allowed on 11.06.2024 and the judgment
and order of learned Single Judge in the said petition was set aside.
5.1 The issue in Writ Appeal No. 955 of 2023 which considered the
challenge to the judgment and order of learned Single Judge in Writ
Petition No.2175 of 2022 was identical as is sought to be agitated in
the present writ appeal.
5.2 While deciding Writ Appeal No.955 of 2023, the Court upheld the
decision of the appellants therein in applying the revised pay scales
from 28.02.2014 and excluding all the employees of the company who
NC: 2024:KHC:25536-DB
were not on the rolls of the company on 28.02.2014 and were retired.
They were not extended the benefit of revised pay scale. The original
petitioner/respondent herein belongs to the same class and was the
employee of the very same company.
5.3 It is to be noted that the petitioner has not challenged the
decision of implementing the pay scales with effect from 28.02.2014.
The said cut-off date was upheld on the ground that the dividing line
adopted by the company was rational as it was based on the ground
of financial constraints.
6. Learned advocate appearing for the respondent-original petitioner
relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corporation and others
Vs. G.S.Uppal and others [(2008) 7 SCC 375]. The said judgment
deals with extension of equal pay for equal work and treating the
employees at par to hold that higher pay scales introduced by the
State Government for removing the anomaly could not be applied by
classifying the single homogeneous class. The said judgment in
Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewells (supra) stands true on its
own context of facts and the facts of the present case are quite
distinguishable. The said judgment, therefore, will not apply to the
NC: 2024:KHC:25536-DB
present case for the reasons recorded in the judgment in Writ Appeal
No.955 of 2023.
6.1. Here another argument was sought to be canvassed by learned
advocate for the respondent-original petitioner that there was a
settlement reached between the Union and the Company. In this
regard, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants
submitted that the same would not apply inasmuch as the benefit was
extended from the said cut-off date that is, 28.02.2014 only. The
petitioner had retired in the year 2005 much prior to the said date.
7. All the submissions, therefore, advanced by learned advocate for
the respondent-original petitioner to support the impugned judgment
and order of learned Single Judge are misconceived and cannot be
accepted.
8. In view of the decision in Writ Appeal No.955 of 2023, the present
appeal deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the same is allowed.
9. The judgment and order dated 30.10.2023 passed by learned
Single Judge in Writ Petition No.18409 of 2018 is hereby set aside.
10. CCC No.226 of 2024 will not survive in view of our order of
even date. Accordingly, it is disposed of.
NC: 2024:KHC:25536-DB
In view of disposal of the appeal and the contempt petition, the
interlocutory applications would not survive and they stand
accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
(N. V. ANJARIA)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(K V ARAVIND)
JUDGE
RL
