The main legal point established in the judgment is the priority of the workmen's claim for lay-off compensation over the secured creditor's charge, as well as the application of previous orders and principles of res judicata in determining the petitioner's liability.

( 1 ) THE petitioner is sugar manufacturing company. It has laid off its workmen from the closing of working hours on 13th April, 2001 as per the notice at Annexure-A, The 2nd respondent-Association of workers of petitioner-Company complained to the Labour Department that the managment illegally declared lay-off without paying lay-off compensaition and thereby violated Section 25-M of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). The Labour Department issued a notice to the petitioner as per Annexure-B, for which the management has replied as per Annexure-C. Since the reply of the management was not tenable, the Commissioner of Labour issued the impugned recovery certificate at Annexure-D for a total sum of Rs. 51,56,746. 00. The petitioner is seeking to quash the same and to declare that petitioner unit as a "seasonal establishment".

( 2 ) ELABORATE and detailed statement of objections is filed on behalf of 2nd respondent along with several documents justifying the impugned order and seeking dismissal of the writ petition.

( 3 ) HEARD the learned Counsels for the parties. Mr. S. N. Murthy, learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued raising some contentions seeking to quash the impugned certificate. Learned Additional government Advocate for the first respondent and Mr. M. Narayan bhat, learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent argued in support of the impugned order. Mr. S. K. V. Chalapathy, learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent-Bank argued as if the Bank has got first charge over the charge of employees or an alternative request was made. Instead of referring to the contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties and thereafter dealing with them, to avoid repetition, the Court straight away proceeds to consider the contentions on merits.

( 4 ) THE main contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a "seasonal establishment" and hence it is not liable to pay lay-off compensation. Under sub-section (2) of Section 25-K of the Act, the appropriate government has to declare and its decision is final. In the instant case the "appropriate Government" is the State Government of Karnataka. It as already declared the petitioner-establishment as non-seasonal character as per its Order No. SWL 187 LLD 85, dated 19-2-1986, copy of which is produced as Annexure-R3 along with the counter filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent. The same had been confirmed by this Court and affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 10881 and 10882 of 1996, copy of which is produced as Annexure-R1o. Therefore, the issue is no longer res Integra. In the light of these orders, it is not open to the petitioner to again contend that it is a "seasonal establishment. Once it is declared that petitioner is of a non-seasonal character, it holds good at all times and for all purposes and the issue cannot be agitated again and again. The petitioner is also hit by the principles of res judicata to contend so. Hence, the contention is rejected.

( 5 ) UNDER Section 25-M of the Act, the petitioner was required to obtain prior permission of the Government to lay-off its employees. Admittedly such permission was not obtained by the petitioner. Therefore, there is violation of Section 25-M of the Act. Since it is held that petitioner is not seasonal in character, the contention that Section 25-M of the Act is not attracted to the case, does not hold water and the same stands rejected. Consequently, the petitioner is liable to pay lay-off compensation and the impugned recovery certificate is therefore legal and valid.

( 6 ) THE other contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the workmen are badli or casual and they are excluded to claim lay-off compensation under Section 25-C of the Act, is wholly untenable. As per the explanation in Section 25-C of the Act, even badli or casual workmen cease to be regarded as such if they have completed one year of continuous service. In gro