Venugopala Gowda, J.

Writ Appeal No. 165/2007 is filed by the Karnataka State Industrial Investment and Development Corporation Limited (for short ‘the Corporation’). Writ Appeal No. 447/2007 is filed by M/s Karnataka Horological Limited (for short ‘the Industry’). Both the appeals are directed against the common order dated 8th December, 2006 passed by the Learned Single Judge, dismissing Writ Petition Nos. 35393/2000 and 5332/2003 filed by the appellants herein and allowing Writ Petition No. 1172/2005 filed by M/s. Prime Technologies Ltd., (for short ‘the Purchaser’).

Factual Matrix in brief:

2. The management of M/s Karnataka Horological Limited, had availed financial assistance of over Rs. 1 Crore from the Corporation. For non-payment of the amount advanced, notice under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (for short ‘SFC Act’) was issued by the Corporation to the industry. By an order dated 30-6-1994, passed under Section 29 of SFC Act, the Corporation took over the assets of the industry, to realise the amount due to it. After publication of sale notice in the newspapers, Corporation sold the assets of the industry in favour of M/s Prime Technologies, for a bid amount of Rs. 160 Lakhs. An agreement of sale dated 7-10-1994 was entered into between the Corporation and the Purchaser, conveying the assets of the Industry.

3. On account of the lockout of the industry, sale of the assets of the industrial concern and other factors, on a representation of the association of the workmen of the industry, a reference under Section 10(1)(C) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short ‘I.D. Act’) was made by the Government to the Industrial Tribunal. In the meanwhile ‘the workmen’ though their union filed writ petition No.24759/1994 for a direction to the Corporation, Industry and others to lift the seizure of the industry effected on 6-8-1994 and for various other reliefs. The said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 27-9-1995. After adjudication, the Industrial Tribunal (for short “Tribunal”), found the lockout by the management as illegal and held that the Purchaser, M/s Prime Technologies, is liable for payment of dues to the workmen. If further held that the industry is liable to pay the wages for the lock -out period and the Corporation is liable to pay the claim of the workmen for the period from 6-8-1994 to 7-1 0-1994 and from 7-10-1994 M/s Prime Technologies, is liable to pay the demand of the workmen.

4. The award passed in J.D. No. 25/1995 dated 29-4-2000 by the Tribunal was questioned by filing 3 separate writ petition i.e. by the Corporation, the Industry and Purchaser. Learned Single Judge has disposed of the three writ petitions, by a common order, i.e., by allowing the writ petition filed by the Purchaser holding that, in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court reported in 1997 (II) LLJ 59, no liability can be fastened on it and has dismissed the writ petitions filed by the Corporation and the industry, thereby modifying the award and has directed the Corporation and the industry, to settle the claims of the workmen, jointly and severally.

Background facts before Labour Court:

5. The workmen, through their union pursued the reference before the Tribunal. The points of dispute referred for adjudication to the Tribunal, read as follows:

1. Whether the Lockout dated 6-8-1994 by the Management of M/s Karnataka Horological Ltd., 393, Judges Colony, R.T. Nagar, Bangalore-560 032, is justified in law?

2. Whether M/s Karnataka State Industrial Investment and Development Corporation is justified in law in acquiring the Institution and selling the same to other (Prime Technology) without keeping in mind the Interest of Workmen?

3. Whether M/s Karnataka State Industrial Investment and Development Corporation was justified in not revoking the suspension orders of Sri T.C. Jayakumar, Sri D.H. Nagaraj, Sri Chandra shekaradhya, Sri M.L. Narasappa, Sri R.Krishnaiah, Sri C.R. Nanjlinda Murthy a