Case: M.D. Karnataka Forest Development Corporation Vs. Workmen Karnataka Pulpwood Limited &amp; Others

3. Indisputably theherein were the workmen of Karnataka Pulpwood Limited. (The company). It was a Government Company; It was running at a loss. Karnataka Pulpwood Limited is & joint sector company of Karnataka Forest Development Corporation Limited and Karnataka Harihar Poly fibres Limited 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 Limited which is said to be a subsidiary of the appellantcorporation faced hostility from the local people for various reasons. Public interest litigation was also filed before this Court against lease of forestlands, 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 rising of maintenance of plantations.A question, therefore, arose as to whether the said company should be would up. By reason of a decision taken by the State of Karnataka on or aboutit was, inter alia, directed:up Karnataka Pulpwood Limited 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 Limited and any guarantee given by the Government to Karnataka Pulpwood Limited for raising loans are transferred to Karnataka Forest Development Corporation Limited.(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 incase of any dispute between the parties.(d) Karnataka Forest Development Corporation is directed to absorb the staff of Karnataka Pulpwood Limited in Karnataka Forest Development Corporation.(e) To return the enquiry to M/s Harihar Polyfibres Limited. 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 HariharAn attempt was made to wind up the said industrial undertaking in terms of the provisions of the Companies Act. On or aboutthe 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. Apropos was also mooted that a voluntary retirement scheme be floated in regard to the employees of the company and in its mating held onThe matter was also discussed in the meeting of the High Power Committee on Public Sector Undertakings under the chairmanship of the Chief Secretary onIt was pointed out that in the HPC a decision has been taken to close the KPL revising the earlier decision of merger with KFDC.Yet again, a Government order was issued on. 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 Department for closure under Sectionof the Industrial Disputes Act.Pursuant thereto and in furtherance thereof an application was filed for closure of Karnataka Pulpwood Limited before the State Government.was also given an opportunity of hearing in the proceedings initiated therefore. It was, inter alia,the employees of KPL are ready and willing to accept the VRS as proposed by the Management of KPL in its letter datedand the VRS scheme revised uptoas per G.O. of DPAR (RPE) datedprovided other conditions aree, 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.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 the Government has examined counter objections of the management. 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 orof the company. The union has not refuted, anywhere in their objection about the losses incurredof 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 their 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 Sectionof the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Accordingly the following orders.G.O. No.LD 559 IDG 2004, Bangalore, datedthe circumstances explained in the preamble, the permission of the Government is hereby accorded as required under Sectionof Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to the management of Mts. Karnataka Pulpwood Limited Bangalore to closedown the above industrial undertaking as proposed by them.Aggrieved by and dissatisfied therewith, the respondents filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka, which was marked as Writ Petition Nos.of 2005. In the said writ petitions, the following prayers wereIssue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order of direction quashing the order bearing reference LD 559, IDG 2004, Bangalore, datedissued by the 2nd respondents, a true copy of which is produced and marked assince 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 of 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 datedand also representations submitted by the 1st Petitioner Union videto H sinceof the same by the respondents 1, 3 and 4 is unjust, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.It appears that another writ petition was filed by another union, i.e., Karnataka Pulpwood Limited Employees Union (Regd) that was marked as Writ Petitionof 2005. A learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka by a judgment and order datedThe 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 absorption 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 be permitted to close the undertaking byThe 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.When the writ petition filed by the respondents herein came up for consideration before another Bench, it by a judgment and order datedI 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. 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 Limited on or before 28th February, 2005.Both, the Management as also the workmen, preferred intra court appeals there against. A Division Bench by an order dateddirected the Principal Secretary of the Government to inform the Court as to whether the Government order datedon which reliance had been placed by thewas 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 Managementis contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the Corporation is that the Government Order datedstands 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 datedstood withdrawn or superseded. The learned State Counsel, on the other hand, on receipt of instructions from the Secretary of the Government who is present in Court, informs us that the Government orders datedhas 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."

Court's reasoning:
16. It is unfortunate that the State of Karnataka as alsodid not specifically take one stand or the other. It has been prevaricating its stand from state to stage. The provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, govern the relationship between the company and the respondents being employer and workmen. 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. Sectionof the said Act lays down the procedure for closing down anregard to the fact those rights of the workmen flow from the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, a writ Court could not have issued any otherthe 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 has 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 thefor appointing the concerned workmen direction to continue their services could not be issued. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the said order datedhas 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.