V.S. DIWAKAR, S/O. S.V. SIDDAPPA AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE -1, KARNATAKA PULPWOOD LIMITED, VANAVIKASA 18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE - 3 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the Counsel for the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioners would state that the closure compensation, which was agreed to be paid, bur was not settled in favor of the petitioners, is the main prayer in the writ petition and during the pendency of the writ petition, the said compensation has been paid in two, installments. However, it has been paid belatedly and the respondents have also withheld other amounts which were due, such as salary for a period of five months before the closure of the second respondent - company and the compensation having been paid belatedly, the petitioners have been denied the amounts unjustly, leading to much hardship and inconvenience. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that notwithstanding the payment of closure compensation by the respondents, the petitioners would yet be entitled to nominal interest on the said amount, which may be directed to be paid by the respondents.

(2.) HAVING regard to the nature of the payment, namely, that the compensation is paid to the petitioners as a one -time settlement in view of the impending closure of the second respondent - company, the compensation is a windfall to the petitioners. The same is provided to the petitioners by virtue of the circumstance, which they could not have expected in the usual course. The compensation is to alleviate their hardship and suffering by virtue of the termination of the relationship. Therefore, the petitioners seeking to claim interest on that amount, when it is not an amount which is unjustly withheld by the respondents and the amounts, which did not stand vested in the petitioners, the claim for interest on the compensation is wholly out of place, especially, in a circumstance where the second respondent being wound -up on account of the second respondent's functioning having been found to be financially unviable and the petitioners seeking to claim a higher amount inspite of having been paid the compensation, under the head of interest, is unreasonable and there is no basis to claim any such interest on the said amount.