M/S.KARNATAKA SC & ST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs. BHARATHMATHA WATCH ASSEMBLY UNIT EMPLOYEES UNION

BHARATHMATHA WATCH ASSEMBLY UNIT EMPLOYEES UNION CITU, K.V.TEMPLE STREET SULTANPET, BANGALORE-53 REP. BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY

HONNANARASAMMA W/O NARASAPPA MAJOR, NO.17, 1ST CROSS, NAGARABHAVI, GNANABHARATHI MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-72.

B SAROJA W/O MARIYANNA NO.5, 3RD CROSS, 4TH MAIN, J.C.NAGARA, BASAVESWARANAGAR II STAGE, BANGALORE-79.

SOWBHAGYA W/O N SHEKAR NO.1779, E.W.S. III STAGE YELAHANKA SATELLITE TOWN BANGALORE-64.

V. UMA W/O SURYAKUMAR NO.564, HAL POST, YAMMALUR, BANGALORE-37.

R VIJAYALAKSHMI W/O T A MOHAN NO.5/12, L S BUILDINGS S N A M SCHOOL ROAD UNDERSONPET, KGF

P. VENKATARATHNAMMA W/O S BHAKTHASSHEKARAN CHRIST HAPPY HOME EXENSION, KANNORAHALLI EXTN., HOSAKOTE-562114

P RAJESWARI W/O B S HARIPRASAD NO.2/A, III MAIN ROAD, SANJAYANAGAR BANGALORE-93

Y P SHIRAGUPPI C/O B KRISHNANAYAK NO.617, NIVASA COMPOUND OPP. BHARATHI TALKIES T DASARAHALLI BANGALORE-57

R PADMAVATHI W/O M MAHADEVAIAH NO.55, SHIVAKRUPA SRI MAHADESWARASWAMY NILAYA 6TH CROSS, MUNESHWARANAGARA ULLAL UPANAGARA MAIN ROAD GANABHARATHI BANGALORE-56

LEELABAI W/O B KRISHNANAIKA MANE NIVASA COMPLEX OPP. BHARATHI TALIKES T DASARAHALLI BANGALORE-57

H R SHANTHAMMA W/O H S RAJAIAH HUDCO QUARTERS II BLOCK, K S R P QUARTERS KORAMANGALA BANGALORE-37

Y J SARASWATHI W/O BANDARINARAYANA BALAJI FLOOR MILL NO.18, I CROSS, I MAIN ROAD BYRASANDRA, JAYANAGARA BANGALORE-11

P R SUSHEELA W/O KRISHANAPPA OLD MOSQUE ROAD T DASARAHALLI BANGALORE-57

J VIMALA W/O G BALU NO.12, SAMPANGI LANE SIDADHARANAGAR (T C M ROYAN ROAD) COTTENPET, BANGALORE-52

S C LAKSHMAMMA W/O A KRISHNAPPA SAMPIGEHALLY JAKKUR POST BANGALORE NORTH

K NEELAVENI W/O LATE V K GANESH NO.218, VIII MAIN 4TH CROSS, M V GARDEN ROAD BANGALORE-08

PRAMEELA W/O SALOMAN NO.24, LALBAGH ROAD OLD MISSION COMPOUND BANGALORE-27

G SHAMALADEVI W/O GOVINDARAJU NO.19, IV CROSS, 8TH MAIN VASANTHANAGAR BANGALORE-52

M UMADEVI W/O B KRISHNAIAH NO.11, INCOME TAX QUARTERS I MAIN ROAD, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE-46

R VANAJA W/O SHIVAPANDYAN NO 45, VII CROSS, MUTTHU LANE PILLANNA GARDEN BANGALORE 84

R S JAYAMMA W/O H T GANGADHARAIAH C.A.R. POLICE LINE G BLOCK, NO.7, ADUGODI BANGALORE- 30

A R GANGALAKSHMI W/O OBALAIAH H. NO. 3, POLICE QUARTERS DODDABALLAPURA

C JAYALAKSHMI W/O PUTTASWAMY 18TH CROSS WATER SUPPLY QUARTERS, MALLESWARAM BANGALORE.

B VIJAYAKUMARI W/O C T KRISHNAPPA NO 7, COLES ROAD, POLICE QUARTERS FRAZER TOWN, BANGALORE- 5

M LAKSHMAMMA W/O RAMACHANDRAIAH NO 27, RGI COLONY L N PURAM, BANGALORE-21

R NAGARATHNAMMA W/O RAJU ANANDAJYOTHI COLONY BANGALORE ROAD KOLLEGAL TALUK, KOLLEGAL

H SHAKUNTHALA W/O NAGARAJAIAH PAVANAJANILAYA, MARUTHI BADAVANE NO 10, I CROSS, SINGAPURA MAIN ROAD, VIDYARANYAPURAM POST (M S PALYA), BANGALORE -97

N SHANTHAMMA W/O G THIMMAIAH NO 33, NEELAGIRI PAPANNA BLOCK SRIRAMAPURAM, V CROSS BANGALORE- 25

S PARVATHI W/O PRAKASH NO 17, I CROSS NAGARABHAVI GNANABHARATHI MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE 72

G YASHODHA W/O P SHEKARA NO. 19, 4TH CROSS, 8TH MAIN ROAD, VISHWANATHANAGARA BANGALORE-52

S KRISHNAMMA, D/O LATE SANNAPPA NO. 8/11, DODDANNA LANE 11TH CROSS, VENKATESHAPURAM, K.G.H. POST, BANGALORE-45

KUSHALAKUMARI W/O R RAMU NO. 48, SRIHARINIVASA, C SECTOR, AMRUTHANAGAR, BANGALORE-92

B JAYALAKSHMI W/O BALAGANGADHARA NO. 504, 4TH MAIN ROAD, KAMALANAGARA BANGALORE-79

G K RENUKAMBA S/O P G KUPPALINGAM NO. 22/5-5, NAVEENA NIVASA I STAGE, PIPE LINE, NEAR LAKSHMI THEATRE MATTHIKERE, BANGALORE-54

M SHARADA D/O MAYANNA NO. 90, 6TH CROSS, NEELAGIRI PAPANNA BLOCK SRIRAMPURAM, BANGALORE- 21

G K HEMALATHA W/O RAMALINGAMA NO. 446, 8TH CROSS, 13TH MAIN, I STAGE,

C INDIRA W/O SOMAIAH 218, AVALAHALLI, MYSORE ROAD, G.E.S. POST VINOBHA COLONY, BANGALORE-26

A KEMPALAKSHMAMMA MAJOR, W/O DODDABORAIAH, C/O K S VARDAIAH, H.NO. 341, 90 G.E.F, LABOUR COLONY, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE-26

MALLIKE MAHADEVAMMA MAJOR, D/O KEMPAIAH C/O RAMALINGEGOWDA, A.G. COLONY, C.A. KERE HOBLI, BHARATHINAGARA POST, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DIST.

K SHYAMALAKANTHA W/O.SUNIL, MAJOR NO.257, 10TH MAIN, 15TH CROSS, J J R NAGAR, V S GARDEN BANGALORE 25

CHENNAMMA, MAJOR W/O.K A MAHADEVASWAMY KALLAREPURA, DUGGANAHALLI POST MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT

DEVARAJAMMA, MAJOR W/O.LATE NINGAIAH NO.413, 10TH MAIN ROAD, VINAYAKANGAR MAIN ROAD BANGALORE-26

G LAKSHMAMMA D/O.LATE GANGARAMAIAH KOLAGERE VILLAGE & POST, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT

B LAKSHMAMMA W/O.CHANNAKESHAVAMURTHY SANTHESHIVARA, NUGGEHALLI CHANNARAYAPATTANA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT

SHIVAMMA W/O.ANDANAPPA NO.106, HMT COMPLEX, JALAHALLI, BANGALORE

G VIJAYAKUMARI W/O.GUNASHEKAR NO.78, I A CROSS, DHOOPANAHALLI, HAL II STAGE, BANGALORE 560 008

PRINCIPAL SECRETARY SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT M S BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE- 560001

SMT. C LAKSHMAMMA W/O.G MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS NO.B-9, D A MAIN ROAD, MAGADI ROAD, GOPALAPURAM BANGALORE -560023

SIDDALINGESHWARA MURTHY S/O.BAGGALAIAH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT.NO.56, 7TH CROSS, 8TH MAIN, K N EXTENSION YESHAWANTHAPURA, BANGALORE.

M/S KARNATAKA SC/ST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., VISHVESHWARAIAH TOWER DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE 560 001 REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

THE MANAGEMENT OF BHARATHMATHA WATCH ASSEMBLY UNIT A 102, 12TH MAIN ROAD, PEENYA BANGALORE-560 058 (BY AND FOR SC AND ST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR)

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING DR. B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-01 ... RESPONDENTS

The dispute was raised by the Bharathmatha Watch Assembly Unit Employee's Union ('BWAUE Union’ for short). The Industrial Tribunal ordered absorption of the workmen concerned from the date of the award. The BWAU Employee's Union has filed W.P.No.22124/2005 seeking that such regularisation of the services be made with effect from 1982. Since the issue relates to regularisation/absorption in both the

The parties will be referred to by their names for the sake of convenience and clarity.

The instant case has a chequered history and is the second round of consideration in respect of one of the points which was referred for adjudication before the Labour Court. The KSC & ST DC had started the M/s. Bharathmatha Watch Assembly Unit ( 'BMWA' for short ) as an ancillary unit to H.M.T. Watch factory to assemble the components of watches after training the ladies belonging to the SC & ST category. However, that unit which was dependant on the understanding between H.M.T. and KSC & ST DC, was closed down as it was not viable. During that stage, the disputes arose with regard to certain monetary benefits. One other issue which arose was also as to whether such of those employees were entitled to be absorbed in KSC & ST DC.

The Labour Court after consideration, by its award dated 12.08.1992, in so far as A.I.D. No.03/1988 had allowed the same in part and had directed that the unit be re-opened and reinstate the workers with continuity of service. Both parties to the dispute were aggrieved and were before this Court in W.P.No.2697/1993 c/w W.P.No.35535/1992. The learned Judge of this Court through the order dated 26.09.1996 confirmed the award on all other aspects, but set aside the finding in A.I.D No.3/1988 relating to the question of absorption in order to adjudicate whether the workers of BMWA unit are entitled to be absorbed in the SC & ST DC of the Government of Karnataka. The said order was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5787/1997 through the order dated 20.03.2002.

In the above context, the matter arose for fresh consideration in respect of only one issue which was a part of the reference made at the first instance. The same reads as hereunder;

On re-consideration the Labour Court has passed the award dated 21.11.2003 in A.I.D. No.03/1988. By the said award, the referred issue was held in the affirmative and directed the SC & ST DC to absorb the workers. The SC & ST DC claiming to be aggrieved is before this Court in W.P. No. 5134/2004. The BMWAE Union has on the other hand filed W.P.No.22124/2005 seeking further benefit of regularisation with effect from 1982 by contending that they are similarly placed as Ms.Soubhagya who according to them has been regularised during that period.

In the above backdrop, I have heard Sri Somashekar, learned counsel, Sri Vivek Reddy, learned senior counsel and Sri. T.S.Mahantesh, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the petition papers.

The very nature of the reference made as extracted above and the remand order made by this Court in the earlier writ petition will by itself disclose that the workers concerned were working in the separate unit and not directly in SC & ST DC and such unit was an ancillary to H.M.T Watch Factory. The fact that the said unit has been closed down is also not a disputed aspect. On such closure, whether the workers of that unit are to be absorbed in the SC & ST DC which established such unit is the question which calls for an answer. One other aspect which is to be noted at this point is that when the dispute arose, there were 92 workers who were working in the unit and had been discontinued. During the pendency of the petition, a VRS package was offered as a settlement and 89 workers have accepted the same. Only three workers namely Ms. M. Malathi, Ms. S. Prema and Ms.V.Radhamma have not accepted and as such, the consideration relating to absorption remains only to that extent. Even among them, Ms.S.Prema is stated to

While assailing the award passed by the Labour Court, the learned counsel for KSC & ST DC would contend that the Labour Court has failed to take into consideration the nature of engagement of the workers in a unit which was solely dependent on the assembly of components that was required to be made for HMT. The Corporation in order to provide training and employment had undertaken the project by starting the unit for only that purpose and the functions of that unit did not have anything to do with KSC & ST DC. The documents at Annexure-D series is relied on to indicate the nature and purpose for which the engagement was made. On the agreement with HMT having come to an end, there was no employment and the unit was required to be closed. There is no functional integrality between the said unit and the activities of KSC & ST DC. The KSC & ST DC has its own cadre strength as indicated in Annexure-B1 and

The learned senior counsel appearing for the workers concerned on the other hand seeks to contend that the Labour Court while considering these aspects of the matter has taken into consideration that there are vacancies in the Group C and D post in KSC & ST DC and in that light has arrived at its conclusion. It is pointed out that with regard to the nature of the appointment as contended, this Court at the first instance through the order dated 26.09.1996 in W.P.No.2697/1993 has referred to that aspect of the matter and had taken note that the appointment orders are issued by the KSC & ST DC. It is in that light the issue relating to absorption therein was directed to be considered by the Labour Court. Hence, when the Labour Court has taken into consideration all aspects and has arrived at a finding of fact, the same does not call for interference. It is also pointed out that at this

In a writ petition of the present nature, the position is clear that there is no scope for re- appreciation of evidence except to notice as to whether evidence available has been considered in its correct perspective or as to whether the findings rendered by the Labour Court admits of any perversity. In that regard a perusal of the consideration made by the Labour Court appears to be contrary to factual position arising in the instant case keeping in view the established legal position. The Labour Court has noticed the evidence of MW-1 to MW-4 with regard to the different nature of the employment and pay pattern of the employees of the KSC & ST DC and the watch unit and that they are not employees of KSC & ST DC merely on the appointment order being issued to the workers. The agreement with H.M.T. was noticed and

Though such evidence on record has been noticed, the Labour Court without indicating strong reasons to discard such evidence has come to a conclusion that since the KSC & ST DC has issued the letters of appointment and the financial affairs of the watch unit was being maintained by the KSC & ST DC, the watch unit cannot be considered as an independent unit. The letters at Annexure-D series to which the Labour Court has made the reference will in fact indicate that though the letter is issued by the KSC & ST DC, the clear stipulation is with regard to the

In the above background, it is necessary to notice the decisions relied on by the learned Counsel for KSC & ST DC which are as follows; i) The case of Isha Steel Treatment, Bombay -vs- Association of Engineering Workers Bombay and Others (1987 (1) LLJ 427 ) wherein it is observed as hereunder, "8. It is not necessary that in order to effect closure of business the management should close down all the branches of its business. In Management of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. the

In view of the findings recorded above, the respondent would be entitled to compensation only in accordance with Section 25-FFF of the Act and the award for reinstatement in service with back wages passed by the Tribunal which was affirmed by the High Court cannot be sustained and must be set aside."

If in the light of the observations contained in the above referred decisions the instant facts are noticed, the fact that the watch unit was a separate unit which was dependant on H.M.T. cannot be in doubt. Due to lack of orders from them the unit has been closed. The very reason for which the consideration to be made is, as to whether the absorption is to be made in KSC & ST DC will indicate that work is not available in the unit where the workers were earlier working and the closure of the unit is also not held as bad in law.

In that view of the matter, if the watch unit had continued to exist as a viable unit no doubt the employment would have continued. But when it is legally closed down by paying them the compensation it is only that the persons who had been assisted by the KSC & ST DC in acquiring the skills of the trade should make use of the same to secure employment in similar industry. On the other hand the absorption of the workforce in the KSC & ST DC itself is neither envisaged nor can it be said that there is functional integrality to consider the Corporation set up for the welfare of the community and an ancillary unit set up to achieve such objective are inter-dependant. If a contrary view is taken it will lead to an anomalous situation where persons being assisted by the KSC & ST DC as a welfare measure would claim right under the Corporation which is neither envisaged nor is it reasonable to accept such contention. Though at this point only two workers are remaining, if the issue of absorption is considered in the context of 97 workers, one cannot imagine that so many

Further, taking note of the above aspects what cannot be lost sight is also that this Court in the order dated 26.09.1996 in W.P.No.2697/1993 though remanded the matter had also indicated that a reasonable settlement should be arrived at and it was stated that the workers should not fight shy in accepting a reasonable settlement and it should not be viewed that whatever is offered by the management would only be unjust. With the hope that there will be such settlement the matter had been sent back which is a clear indication that absorption was not the only thing which was working in the mind of this Court. As noticed, by way of settlement VRS package was offered and all but the three persons have accepted the same. Though in a normal circumstance the VRS will be applicable to the employees on regular rolls, the same is seen to have been given by way of settlement with the approval of the Government subject to the same being

Since this Court is of the view that the relief of absorption cannot be granted, the question of such absorption being made with effect from 1982 as prayed in W.P.No.22124/2005 also does not arise. The contention of the learned counsel for KSC & ST DC is that Ms. Soubhagya to whom reference is made has not been absorbed or regularized, but has been selected in the regular recruitment process. There is nothing on record to indicate that she has been regularized and as such granting a similar benefit in any view does not arise.

Hence for all the aforestated reasons, the following: ORDER (i) W.P.No.5134/2004 is allowed and the award dated 21.11.2003 passed in A.I.D.No.3/1988 is set aside. (ii) W.P.No.22124/2005 is dismissed. (iii) Notwithstanding the above, the VRS settlement package amount paid to the other workers involved herein shall be paid to Ms. M. Malathi, Ms. V.Radhamma and the legal representative of Ms. S.Prema. The payment shall be made within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (iv) The parties shall bear their respective costs.