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