SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 60524

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

COMPANY APPLICATION NO.19 OF 2019

IN

COMPANY PETITION NO.154 OF 2002

BETWEEN

P.V. NARAPPA REDDY

S/O LATE C. VENKATASWAMY REDDY

AGED 63 YEARS

R/AT. NO. 90, 5TH CROSS

RBD LAYOUT, NEAR WIPRO CORPORATE OFFICE

SARJAPURA

BENGALURU – 560 035.

…APPLICANT

(BY SRI.B.RAMESH., ADVOCATE)

AND

1.

CHAIRMAN & COMMISSIONER

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIES INFRASTRUCTURE

DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

& NEGF EMPLOYEES AFFAIRS COMMISSIONER

KSSIDC, KANAJI BHVAN, 2ND FLOOR

BENGALURU – 560 001.

2.

NGEF LTD.,

KSSIDC, KANAJI BHAVAN, 2ND FLOOR

BENGALURU – 560 001.

REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOER.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SAJI.P. JOHN, ADVOCATE FOR R2- NGEF )

2

THIS COMPANY APPLICATION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 462

OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 READ WITH RULES 11 (B) AND 298

OF THE COMPANIES (COURT) RULES, 1956, PRAYING TO

THIS COMPANY APPLICATION COMING ON FOR ORDERS

THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

Learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned

counsel for the 2nd respondent – NGEF have filed a Joint

Memo duly signed by them, which reads as under:-

Joint Memo

“ 1.

The applicant had filed the above CA seeking for

payment as Per final Settlement Scheme 2016 along with

back wages and consequential benefits. All the above claims

were duly considered by the 2nd Respondent, and a memo

was filed along with calculation with a proposal to pay Rs.

22,69,465/-.

2.

The Government of Karnataka(majority shareholder

of NGEF Limited) filed Company application 184/2015

seeking for recall of the Winding up order og NGEF Limited

for the utilization of the company land for public

infrastructure projects, accordingly Govt had settled all the

Secured Creditors and had number of discussion with the

Employees Union through the KSIIDc the Nodal agency.

There were 120 ex employees who had not opted for any of

the VRS Scheme. Thus Final Settlement Scheme 2016 was

provided to these 120 ex employees. The Final Settlement

Scheme 2016 was arrived based on the discussion with the

3

employee union. The compensation there of was computed

by D.K Upendra and Co. A CA firm based on the

government Order. 15.07.2016. Considering the undertaking

provided by the Respondent in the earlier CA 104/2018, the

Respondent has computed the settlement payable to the

Applicant on the same formula.

3.

Since the Applicant disputed the basic wage which

was fixed, the matter was referred to mediation. The 2nd

respondent considered the basic wage of one Mr.

Nandakumar who was also similarly placed employee and

accordingly revised its settlement proposal during the

mediation to effect a full and final settlement, substantially

revising the original computation detailed as follows:

Sl.

No.

Particulars

Amount

1.

Back wages for 27months(21.09.2000

to 20.12.2002)

2,40,300

2.

Compensation under 2016 Scheme

12,02,400

3.

Interest @ 8% (20.12.2002 to

31.08.2022) 7194 days

18,95,918

Total

3,38,627

Less:

Original Computation

22,69,465

Increase

10,69,162 +

2,40,300

(given including

on

humanitarian

ground)

The above detailed computation is provided herewith.

4.

As

per

judgment

in

WP

No.

28446/2002(e-DE) the applicant is not entitled for Back

4

wages However, the same is also provided by the

Respondent

Company

(Rs.2,40,300/-)

only

on

humanitarian consideration. Thus there is no further

scope for ESI (Employee’s contribution) and Gratuity.

5.

The Respondent submits that, the maximum

settlement amount provided in the Settlement scheme

ranges from Rs. 9.00 Lakhs to 29,.00 Lakhs only based

on their cadre and nos of years of service. The copy of

the settlement computation for the 120 are furnished

herewith. The Settlement computation was filed along

with Memo dated: 20.09.2019.

6.

It is submitted that though the revision was

provided at the mediation, the Applicant had not

accepted the same. In the mediation, the revision, of

basic wages was given effect by the Respondent,

whereby the compensation originally offered stood

revised, however the same was unacceptable by the

Applicant. There was a computation error, regarding the

calculation, which is now being harped upon by the

applicant.

The

Respondent

submits

that

any

undertaking/ proposal given in the mediation is not

binding unless the matter stands disposed off through

mediation. As such the submission of the applicant may

be rejected on this ground alone. Be it as it may be, the

respondent is still willing to go ahead with the proposal

given at mediation however the same is subject to

proper calculation as stated above.

5

7.

It is submitted that the Applicant is

dragging the above matter, as such the above is the

final computation offered by the respondent, as the

Respondent is already burdened with 8% interest for

the past 3 years, though the Respondent is earning

only a nominal interest of 4 % on the FD’s.

Considering the above, this Hon’ble Court may be

pleased to direct the Applicant to accept Rs.33,38,627/-

as full an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top