LexGENERAL MANAGER, KARNATAKA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION versus GENERAL SECRETARY, MYSORE DIVISION INDUSTRIAL WORKERS GENERAL UNION AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 2 S.C.R. 744 A ASSTT. GENERAL MANAGER, KARNATAKA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION v. GENERAL SECRETARY, MYSORE DIVISION INDUSTRIAL WORKERS GENERAL UNION AND ORS. B (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 8684 of 2010) APRIL 03, 2013 [H.L. GOKHALE AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.) C STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1951, s. 46-8 -Industrial concern closed down - Recovery of dues of workmen as also of State Financial Corporation - Held: Workmen had their rights adjudicated in the year 2005, D and court had held that they were entitled to their dues uls. 33- C of the Industrial Disputes Act as well as under Payment of Gratuity Act -- Labour Commissioner did not proceed with the proceedings for realizing claims of workmen which he was expected to realize from sale proceeds of assets of company E -- Merely because appellant Financial Corporation subsequently sold the properties, that by itself cannot destroy rights of workmen as held by competent courts - Under s.46- 8, provisions of 1951 Act shall be applicable in addition to, and not in derogation of any other law for the time being applicable to an industrial concern -- High Court compared F claim of petitioner with claims of workmen where a company goes into liquidation and held that dues of workmen shall have preference -- Comparison has to be seen with proper perspective and that has to be seen on the backdrop of s. 46- 8 -- There is no error in the order of High Court - Industrial G Disputes Act, 1947 - ss.33-C- Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. H Central Bank of India vs. Sriguppa Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. and Ors. 2007(8) SCR 898 = (2007) 8 sec 353 and 744 A.G.M., KARNATAKA STATE FINANCIAL CORPN. v. GEN. 745 SEC., MYSORE DIV. IND. WORKERS GENERAL UNION Union of India and· Ors. vs. Sicom Limited and Another, 2008 A (17)SCR 120 = (2009) 2 SCC 121 -distinguished. Case Law Reference: 2007 (8) SCR 898 distinguished 2008 (17) SCR 120 distinguished para 7 para 7 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 8684 of 2010. B From the Judgment and order dated 16.12.2009 of the c High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in WA No. 1382 of 2009. Kiran Suri, S.J. Amith, Nakibur Rahman Barbuiya for the Petitioner. V.N. Raghupathy, Shailesh Madiyal, Muthu Kumar K.V., D Anitha Shenoy for the Respondents. The following order of the Court was delivered ORDER 1. Heard Ms. Kiran Suri, learned counsel for the appellant in support of this petition and Mr. Raghupathy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Trade Union. E 2. This special leave petition seeks to challenge the F judgement and order dated 16.12.2009 rendered by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Writ Appeal No.1382/ 2009 whereby the writ appeal filed by the respondents was allowed, and the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissing Writ Petition No.4529/2009 filed by G the respondent was set aside. 3. The short facts leading to the present special leave petition are this wise: The respondent No.1 is a Trade Union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 and was H 746 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 2 S.C.R. A representing the workmen of the industrial concern known as Mysore Panel and Boards Pvt. Ltd. This company closed down its manufacturing activities sometime in January, 2002, leaving some 83 workmen jobless. Consequent upon the closure of the said company, there were various statutory and legal dues of B the workmen, and for that purpose they filed Applications under Section 33-C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as well as under the Payment of Gratuity Act. Those applications were allowed by the concerned authorities. Thus, one Application was allowed by order dated 4.3.2005 for a claim of c Rs.4,71,781/-, another Application was allowed by the order dated 30.8.2005 for a claim of Rs.16,66,585/- and the third Application filed under the Payment of Gratuity Act was allowed by order dated 13.9.2005 for a sum of Rs.7,78,696/-, resulting into total dues of Rs.29, 17,062/-. Having waited sufficiently, the D respondent Trade Union wrote to the Deputy Commissioner of the Mysore District, Mysore by its letter dated 28.8.2008 seeking recovery of these amounts. 4. It so transpired that the Deputy Commissioner, Mysore District was not quick enough in taking the necessary ,steps, E whereas the petitioner Corporation which had its claim against this company, proceeded to sell the leaseho
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.