Disposed

Hmt Employees Union (Citu) v. the Chairman and M.D.

Kerala HC10 Jun 2016WP(C)/2170/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner unions challenged the sale of land by HMT Ltd., arguing a committee report mandated 50% proceeds for unit dues. The Court held no direction could force the sale terms but ordered the company to account for all proceeds.

What did the court decide?

The direction to implement Exhibit P6 report disallowed. Respondents to account for proceeds and address employee dues.

Hmt Employees Union (Citu) Vs the Chairman and M.D. — Company and Corporate | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:

¶2

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶3

FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/20TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶4

WP(C).No. 2170 of 2006 (G)

¶5

PETITIONER(S):

¶6

1. HMT EMPLOYEES UNION (CITU) REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE PRESIDENT, P.R.ASOKAN, HMT COLONY, KALAMASSERY. 2. HMT WORKERS UNION, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, D.RAVEENDRAN UNNITHAN, HMT COLONY, KALAMASSERY. 3. HMT OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, MYELVEL.M, HMT COLONY, KALAMASSERY. 4. ALEX.D.SAM, T.NO.4467, HMT MACHINE TOOLS LTD., HMT COLONY,, KALAMASSERY. BY ADVS.SRI.K.BALACHANDRAN (MANGALATH) SRI.RAJESH NAIR SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN

¶7

RESPONDENT(S):

¶8

1. THE CHAIRMAN AND M.D. HMT LTD., HMT BHAVAN, NO.59, BELLARY ROAD, BANGALORE-560 032. 2. HMT MACHINE TOOLS LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, HMT BHAVAN, NO.59 BELLARY ROAD, BANGALORE-560 032. 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER, HMT MACHINER TOOLS LTD., HMT COLONY, KALAMASSERY. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO 3 BY ADV. SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI (SR.) R1 TO 3 BY ADV. SRI.RONY J.PALLATH R1 TO 3 BY ADV. SRI.RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN P. R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ROSE MARY

¶9

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 3.6.2016, THE COURT ON 10-06-2016 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶10

WP(C).No. 2170 of 2006

¶11

APPENDIX

¶12

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶13

EXHIBIT P1: COPY OF MINUTES OF THE CNB MEETING DATED 21.4.1995. EXHIBIT P2: COPY OF MEMO DATED 27.2.2004 SUBMITTED BY KITCO. EXHIBIT P3: COPY OF MINUTES OF THE MEETING DATED 1.3.2004. EXHIBIT P4: COPY OF MINUTES OF THE MEETING DATED 4.3.2004. EXHIBIT P5: COPY OF MINUTES OF THE MEETING DATED 5.3.2004. EXHIBIT P6: COPY OF REPORT DATED 5.3.2004. EXHIBIT P7: COPY OF ADVERTISEMENT IN THE ECONOMIC TIMES DAILY DATED 29.10.2005. EXHIBIT P8: COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 28.11.2005 BY THE FIRST PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P9: COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 16.12.2003 IN O.P.NO.5321 OF 2003. EXHIBTI P10: COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 26.9.2005 IN CON.CASE(C). NO.888/2004. EXHIBIT P11: COPY OF LETTER DATED 23.12.2005 BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBTI P12: COPY OF LETTER DATED 23.12.2005 BY THE PETITIONERS 1 TO 3 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶14

/TRUE COPY/

¶15

PS TO JUDGE

¶16

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

¶17

W.P(C).No.2170 of 2006

¶18

----------------------------------------------Dated this the 10^th June, 2016

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

This writ petition is filed by the Unions representing the workmen and officers and a workman of the 2nd respondent Company alleging that the 2nd respondent Company will bypass Exhibit P6 report and the amount deriving from the sale proceeds will be taken away from the Kalamassery Unit of the Company.

¶21

Heard Sri.K.Bijoy Chandran, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Saji Varghese, learned counsel for the Company and Smt.Rose Mary, learned Government Pleader appearing for the State Government.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that permission to sell 100 acres of land was given by the Government to the respondent Company for the development of the unit at Kalamassery. A Committee was constituted to scrutinize and make suggestions regarding the proposal of disposing of the surplus land. Exhibit P1 minutes as well as Exhibit P6 report of the Committee would show that a decision was taken to sell 70 acres of land and 50% of sale proceeds

¶23

¶24

WP(C).2170/06

¶25

were to be utilised for working capital/interest burden of the units to which the Non Performing Assets belonged. It is further submitted that amount due to employees even as part payment of statutory dues are remaining unpaid.

¶26

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 2^nd respondent stating that the ownership of the property in question was with the 2^nd respondent and the petitioners, who are employees of the subsidiary companies, have no manner of right to challenge the sale of the property or utilization of the proceeds. It is further stated that the understanding reached by the officials of subsidiary companies with their employees cannot bind the 2^nd respondent and that the understanding would also be unworkable, since the rights transferred by the Government is in favour of the 2^nd respondent and not to any of its units. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Government also supports this stand of the 2^nd respondent. In the above circumstances, the claim of the petitioners that the 2nd respondent would be legally bound to utilise 50% of the proceeds from the sale of property to meet the financial commitments of the H.M.T.Machine Tools, Kalamassery does not appear to be sustainable. However, as a public limited

¶27

WP(C).2170/06 3

¶28

company in which majority of shares are held by the Government of India, the 2nd respondent, is duty bound to account for all proceeds from the sale of the property which had been acquired by the Government for it. It is also submitted by the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3 that the claims of the petitioners regarding the amounts due to the employees of the Company and employees of the Co-operative Societies etc. will be duly addressed by the competent among the respondents.

¶29

In the above circumstances, the direction to the respondents to implement Exhibit P6 report cannot be granted. However, it is made clear that the proceeds from the sale of property will be properly accounted for by the 2^nd respondent and subjected to statutory audit as required by law. The claims of employees of the third respondent Unit and employees of Societies said to be pending for payment shall be duly addressed by the competent among the respondents.

¶30

With the above observations, the writ petition is closed.

¶31

ANU SIVARAMAN

¶32

vgs

Hmt Employees Union (Citu) v. the Chairman and M.D.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hmt Employees Union (Citu) v. the Chairman and M.D.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammed Shafi Vs K.v.Vijayan

Jacob C.K. Vs Reghu Raman

Sajid Ahamed Vs Union of India & Another

Joseph Jacob Vs Kerala State Electricity Board and Ors.

Prasannan A.S. Vs the State of Kerala

Shobhana Narayanan Vs State of Kerala