- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3446 WP No. 24135 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 24135 OF 2010 (L-TER) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. N. SEENAPPA S/O NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS TRAINEE, TTK PRESTIGE LTD., NO.78, OLD MADRAS ROAD DOORAVANINAGAR BANGALORE-560 016 AND NOW RESIDING AT NO. 86 C/O LAKSHMIPATHI PATEL NARASIMHAIAH BUILDING BANGALORE-560 016 2. SRI. M. RAMESH S/O LATE MUNIRATHNAM TRAINEE, TTK PRESTIGE LTD., NO.78, OLD MADRAS ROAD DOORAVANINAGAR BANGALORE-560 016 AND NOW RESIDING AT C/O H.M.RAJU, 5TH 'A' CROSS M.V.EXTENSION, HOSAKOTE 3. SRI. R. PRADEEPKUMAR REDDY EMPLOYEE NO.462, TTK PRESTIGE LTD., NO.78, OLD MADRAS ROAD DOORAVANINAGAR BANGALORE AND NOW R/A NO.1028 I CROSS, I MAIN, VIJINAPURA Digitally signed by ANJALI M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3446 WP No. 24135 of 2010 DOORAVANINAGAR POST BANGALORE-560 016 4. SRI. K.C. LINGEGOWDA EMPLOYEE NO.445, TTK PRESTIGE LTD., NO.78, OLD MADRAS ROAD DOORAVANINAGAR BANGALORE-560 016 AND NOW R/A NO.26, 4TH MAIN 2ND CROSS, ANAND GIRI EXTENSION HEBBAL, BANGALORE-560 016 5. SRI. PRAKASH S/O N. PURUSHOTHAMAN EMPLOYEE NO.457, TTK PRESTIGE LTD., NO.78, OLD MADRAS ROAD DOORAVANINAGAR BANGALORE-560 016 AND R/A NO.4110, NEW BINNAMANGALA OLD MADRAS ROAD, INDIRANAGAR BANGALORE-560 038 6. 6(A) SRI. S. MANJUNATHA S/O SUBBAIAH EMPLOYEE NO.444, TTK PRESTIGE LTD., NO.78, OLD MADRAS ROAD DOORAVANINAGAR BANGALORE-560 016 AND NOW R/A NO.06, NARASIMHAIAH ROAD UDAYA NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 016 (SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES) SMT. LAKSHMI N W/O SRI. S. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT 06, KITHIGANUR COLOY NEAR SANNATHA MALL KITHIGANUR - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3446 WP No. 24135 of 2010 6(B) KRISHNARAJAPURAM BENGALURU EAST-560 036 SRI. DARSHAN M S/O SRI. S. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS R/AT 06, KITHIGANUR COLOY NEAR SANNATHA MALL KITHIGANUR KRISHNARAJAPURAM BENGALURU EAST-560 036 7. J. SRINIVAS S/O JOWARAPA EMPLOYEE NO.456, TTK PRESTIGE LTD., NO.78, OLD MADRAS ROAD DOORAVANINAGAR BANGALORE-560 016 R/A NO.502, CHI. UDAYASHANKAR STREET I MAIN, UDAYANAGAR BANGALORE-560 016 8. SRI. V. RAMU S/O VENKATAPPA EMPLOYEE NO.459, TTK PRESTIGE LTD., NO.78, OLD MADRAS ROAD DOORAVANINAGAR BANGALORE-560 016 AND & R/AT NO.73, FCI ROAD JYOTHIPURA, DOORAVANINAGAR POST BANGALORE-560 016 9. SRI. J. MUNIYAPPA S/O JAYARAMAPPA EMPLOYEE NO.475, TTK PRESTIGE LTD., NO.78, OLD MADRAS ROAD DOORAVANINAGAR BANGALORE-560 016 AND R/A CHINNAGINAHALLI VILLAGE - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3446 WP No. 24135 of 2010 VIRGONAGAR POST BANGALORE-560 049 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SUBRAMANYA BHAT M, ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER NOS.1, 2, 7 & 9; SRI. B.D. KUTTAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER NOS.3, 4, 5, 6(A) 6(B), P8) AND: MANAGEMENT OF TTK PRESTIGE LTD NO.78, OLD MADRAS ROAD DOORAVANINAGAR BANGALORE-560 016 REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SRI. S.N. MURTHY , SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI. SOMASHEKAR ,ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS IN CASE NO.ID.NO.52-60/07 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. LABOUR COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE & GRANT THE FOLLOWING RELIEFS SETTING ASIDE THE COMMON AWARD PRODUCED & MARKED AS ANN-J AND QUASH THE AWARD DT.30.1.10, PASSED BY THE II ADDL. LABOUR COURT, BANGLAORE IN ID.NOS.52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59 & 60/07 [CERTIFIED COPY OF THE AWARD PRODUCED AS ANN-J] AS THE SAID AWARD SUFFERS FROM ERRORS OF JURISDICTION & ALSO ERRORS WHICH ARE APPARENT ON THE FACE OF RECORD AND ETC.' THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3446 WP No. 24135 of 2010 ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This petition is filed assailing the correctness of the award dated 30.01.2010 by II Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru, in ID No.52-60/2007. In terms of the said award, the Labour Court held that the termination dated 30.06.2007 by the establishment on account of closure is valid. The prayer of the petitioners for reinstatement and continuity of service is rejected. The Labour Court awarded a closure compensation of Rs.1,12,290/-. 3. Aggrieved by the aforementioned award, the petitioners are before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that petitioners joined the services under the respondent-establishment as trainees in the year 1998-1999. Initially, they were appointed on payment of stipend of Rs.1,000/- per month. Later, when the order of termination was issued in the year 2007 it was Rs.3,100/-. The petitioners raised the dispute contending that the decision of - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:3446 WP No. 24135 of 2010 the management closing the establishment is unsustainable and only the unit in Bengaluru was closed. However, the other units outside Bengaluru were still functioning and the petitioners could have easily transferred to jobs in the other units of the establishment. 4. It is also his further submission that Labour Court has not considered the evidence on record in proper perspective and erroneously rejected the claim of the petitioners for reinstatement. 5. Learned counsel in the alternate would contend that compensation awarded under Section 25FFF r/w Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act is also on lower side considering the huge profit the respondent is making and the petitioners are entitled to higher compensation. 6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent management would contend that the petition is totally misconceived. The claim made by the petitioners seeking regularization in terms of the earlier reference in ID No.121/2005 is rejected and in the said proceeding, the petitioners are awarded Rs.75,000/-. The said award in ID - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:3446 WP No. 24135 of 2010 No.121/2005 has attained finality. The petitioners have received Rs.75,000/- compensation in terms of the earlier award in ID No.121/2005. 7. Learned Senior Counsel would also urge that the award of compensation of Rs.1,12,290/- by the Labour Court itself is maintainable, given the fact that the closure is said to be valid. However, the respondent-management has taken a decision not to question the said award and is willing to satisfy the said award. He further submit that in terms of the interim order granted by this Court on 06.01.2010, Rs.20,000/- is paid to the petitioners. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners in reply would contend that two petitioners namely, N.Seenappa and M.Ramesh have not received the regularization compensation of Rs.75,000/-, which was awarded under ID No.121/2005. 9. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that amount is paid, and for any reason, if is found not paid, it will be paid in terms of the award. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:3446 WP No. 24135 of 2010 10. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 11. The records would indicate that when award was passed as per the ID No.121/2005, the claim made by the petitioners for regularization of their employment was rejected. However, compensation of Rs.75,000/- was awarded. This award has attained finality as none of the parties have questioned the said award. 12. Thereafter, the respondent-management has taken a decision to terminate the services on the premise that the unit in Bengaluru is closed. The order closing the unit is not questioned and that has attained finality. However, the petitioners make a claim that the establishment is having its units outside Bengaluru and the petitioners are to be regularised in those places. The Labour Court after considering the materials on record has taken a view that even the fact that the unit of the respondent-management in Bengaluru where the petitioners are working is closed, the petitioners are not entitled for reinstatement. The Labour Court has concluded that the closure is valid and said order not questioned, the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:3446 WP No. 24135 of 2010 petitioners are only entitled to closure compensation as provided in the Industrial Disputes Act. 13. The closure compensation is determined by taking into account the wages at Rs.3,010/- as on the date of termination. In addition, the Labour Court has awarded Rs.25,000/- towards exgratia and four months stipend is also calculated at Rs.84,280/-. In all, the compensation of Rs.1,12,290/- is awarded. 14. Though, learned counsel for the petitioners would urge that Rs.3,010/- was the wages paid in the year 2002 and thereafter, there was no revision. However, he would further submit that the petitioners are appointed in the year 1999 and they are appointed on a wage of Rs.1,000/- and within a span of three years, the wage was increased to Rs.3,010/-. Thus, he would contend that the wage which is taken into consideration, in 2007 for the purpose of calculating the closure compensation should have been much more than Rs.3,010/-. 15. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent would contend that the wage that was paid to the employee on the - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:3446 WP No. 24135 of 2010 date of termination, is on the basis of calculating the closure compensation. 16. Though, the wage of Rs.3,010/- was paid in the year 2002, it is noticed that there was no escalation by the time the termination took place in the year 2007. However, the Court is not in a position to determine as to what would have been the reasonable escalation had it been given to the petitioners. It is also noticed that the award is passed in the year 2010 directing payment of Rs.1,12,290/- to each of the petitioners towards closure compensation. In terms of the interim order granted by this Court, Rs.20,000/- is paid and balance Rs.92,290/- is not paid. 17. Though the petitioners have questioned the said award, the operation of the award under challenge was not stayed. The respondent-management is retaining Rs.92,290/- balance compensation payable with it since 2010, which amount is neither deposited before this Court nor tended to the petitioners. And also considering the fact that the petitioners' wages were escalated from Rs.1,600/- to Rs.3,010/- in 3 years and also considering the fact that there was no escalation from - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:3446 WP No. 24135 of 2010 2002-2007, and compensation awarded by Labour Court is retained by the respondent. This Court is of the view that interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of the award on the balance amount payable at Rs.92,290/- till date of payment, would meet the ends of justice. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed in part. (ii) The award passed by the Labour Court on quantum of compensation is confirmed. (iii) The balance amount payable by the respondent- management shall be paid to the petitioners with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of the award till the date of payment. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE DS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22