KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD. AND ANR. versus THE AMALGAMATED ELEC. CO. LTD. AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 695 · Decided: 15-12-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION 
CORPORATION LTD. AND ANR. 
v. 
THE AMALGAMATED ELEC. CO. LTD. AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 15, 2000 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND K.G, BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.) 
Labour Laws : 
A 
B 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Sections 25-FF, 25-F-Labour dispute-
C 
Workmen abstained from duty-Company taken over by Board-Reinstatement 
of workmen and back wages-Held, on facts, workmen to be reinstated with 
40% back wages as they were illegally denied employment-Karnataka 
Electricity Undertaking (Acquisition) Act, 1974. 
In 1971, there were labour disputes relating to lockout by Respondent-
company, which resulted in some workers abstaining from work. The company 
re-started the business with about 65 workmen. The disputes were referred 
to Industrial Tribunal. In the meantime, pursuant to passing of the Karnataka 
E!ectricity Undertaking (Acquisition) Act, 1974, the company was taken over 
D 
by the Appellant-Board. Some workmen who abstained from work offered to E 
work with the Board but were refused on the ground of pending Industrial 
Dispute. In 1978. the Tribunal passed an award holding that there was no 
lockout declared by the Company. With the passing of the award, the workmen 
again demanded the Board to permit them to duty. The workmen were not 
allowed to join duty and a fresh Reference was made to the Industrial Tribunal F 
as to whether the management of the company and the Board were justified 
in refusing employment to the workmen with effect from 25.3.1971. The 
Tribunal held that the workers are entitled to reinstatement with 50% of the 
back wages from 7.10.1978. The Board challenged the award of the Tribunal 
before the High Court Since the High Court declined to interfere, the Board 
has preferred the present appeals. 
G 
It was contended by the Board that there was an illegal strike by the 
workmen and the workers refused to join duty despite the offer made by the 
appellant; that at the time of acquisition and taking over of the management 
of the Company, the workmen were not workers of the Company and that the 
695 
H 
696 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A Board has no legal obligation to reinstate them in service; that in view of the 
earlier Reference in 1971, the second Reference was unjustified and the 
principles of res judicata would apply; that there was a delay of several years 
in raising the dispute and that the Tribunal should not have directed 
reinstatement of all the workers. 
B 
c 
The workmen contended that there was an illegal lockout and in spite 
of the workers willing to work, they were denied employment from 25.3.1971 
onwards. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The second Reference was warranted in view of the stand 
taken by the Company and the Board that the workmen were not entitled to 
join duty. Therefore, the principles of res judicata does not apply in the instant 
case. The workmen were not working in the Company at the time when the 
management of the Company was taken over by the Board as they were 
D illegally denied employment Nevertheless, the Company when it was legally 
bound to reinstate the workmen as the award of the Tribunal shows that they 
were illegally denied employment with effect from 25.3.1971. When the Board 
took-over the management of the Company, the workers made themselves 
available for work but were not allowed to join duty by the Board. (699-A, D, El 
E 
1.2. The entire assets and liabilities of the Company were taken over 
by the Board. As per Section 25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, where 
the ownership or management of an undertaking is transferred, whether by 
agreement or by operation of law from the employer in relation to that 
undertaking to a new employer, every workman who has been in continuous 
F service for not less than one year in that undertaking immediately before 
such transfer shall be entitled to notice and compensation in accordance with 
the provisions of Section 25F of the Act. The workers were not paid any such 
compensation as per Section 25F. The services of the workmen should be 
deemed to have been not interrupted by such transfer. Had the Company been 
G functioning, the Company would have been legally bound to engage the workers 
as their workmen by virtue of the award passed by the Tribunal. The Board, 
being the successor-in-interest, is bound to reinstate the workers as per the 
award passed by the Tribunal, meet the ends of justice. [699-E, F, G) 
1.3. Having regard to th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.