Hence these appeals.
After the passing of the award in I.D. No.
The appellant, Karnataka Electricity Board is also directed to give back wages to these employes at the rate of 40 from 7.10.1978 till their reinstatement.
The Industrial Tribunal at Hubli passed its award on 6.3.1991.
Disputes relating to these issues were referred to the Industrial Tribunal and in I.D. No.
In an appeal filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the Division Bench also refused to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal.
The appellant, Karnataka Electricity Board, companytended that these workers companyld number be allowed to join duty in view of the then pending Industrial Dispute.
However, the workmen were number allowed to join duty and in view of the demand made by the workers, a fresh Reference was made as to whether the management of M s Amalgamated Electricity Company Ltd., Belgaum and the Karnataka Electricity Board, were justified in refusing employment to the 29 workmen named therein, with effect from 25.3.1971.
Out of the 29 workers have either retired or died.
The first respondent Company companytended that these workers were offered employment, but they refused to join duty.
We heard the learned companynsel for the appellant, Karnataka Electrcity Board and also the companynsel for the first respondent Company.
11/71, the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, passed an award on 17.2.1978 and it was held that there was numberlockout declared by the first respondent Company.
It held that except one worker, K.S. Shinde, who was in gainful employment elsewhere, all other workers were entitled to reinstatement and 50 of the back wages from 7.10.1978 till their reinstatement.
Meanwhile, on 18.12.1974, pursuant to the Karnataka Electricity Undertaking Acquisition Act, 1974, the management of the first respondent, Amalgamated Electricity Company Ltd., was taken over by the Karnataka Electricity Board whereby all the assets and liabilities of the Amalagamated Electricity Company Ltd. vested with the Karnataka Electricity Board.
By the end December, 1971, the management of the first respondent Company started the business with about 65 workmen and the other workers were number allowed to join duty.
LITTTTTTJ G. BALAKRISHNAN, J. Decision of the Karnataka High Court is challenged in these appeals.
According to the workmen, 29 employees offered themselves to work with the Karnataka Electricity Board, but they were number allowed to work.
The award of the Industrial Tribunal was challenged before the High Court and the learned Single Judge refused to interfere with the award.
The first respondent, the Amalgamated Electricity Company Ltd., was engaged in supply of electricity in Belgaum city.
The learned companynsel for the workmen, on the other hand, companytended that there was an illegal lockout and in spite of the fact that these workers were willing to work, they were denied employment from 25.3.1971 onwards.
11/71, the workmen again made a demand that they must be permitted to join duty in the Karnataka Electricity Board.
