HMT WATCHES LTD. Vs. G. SURESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has called into question the common order, dated 29.4.2014 (Annexure -F) passed by the Court of the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore in A.S. Nos. 63/2002, 64/2002, 65/2002, 69/2002, 70/2002, 71/2002, 81/2002 and 82/2002 in I.A. No. 10.

(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are that the respondent Nos. 1 to 8 were all the employees of the petitioner Company. They availed of the voluntary retirement scheme pursuant to the understanding between themselves and their employer, the petitioner herein, by the agreements executed in June 1992. The respondent Nos. 1 to 8 were required to supply the spares to the petitioner Company out of the raw materials supplied by the petitioner Company, on job work basis. The petitioner Company failed to place sufficient orders. On account of the non -giving of the assured load, the respondent Nos. 1 to 8 suffered the loss. On the ventilation of their grievances before the sole Arbitrator Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Shivashankar Bhat, the award came to be passed on 29.7.2002. The learned Arbitrator quantified the loss suffered by the respondent Nos. 1 to 8 and held that the petitioner is liable to pay each one of them the amount of loss with interest at 20% p.a. from 28.1.2000 till the date of payment. These awards are challenged by the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 9 and 10 by filing the arbitration suit Nos. 63/2002, 64/2002, 65/2002, 69/2002, 70/2002, 71/2002, 81/2002 and 82/2002.

(3.) THE learned City Civil Judge, by his order, dated 8.6.2009 overruled the petitioner's objection by holding that the arbitration suits are not hit by the 1993 Act or by Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter called '2006 Act'). The said order was challenged by the respondent Nos. 1 to 8 in W.P. Nos. 31185 -31188/2010 c/w W.P. Nos. 31070/2010 and 31109 -31111/2010. This Court, by its order, dated 9.11.2010 disposed of the writ petitions giving the liberty to the respondent Nos. 1 to 8 to file one more application for appropriate reliefs. Pursuant thereto, the respondent Nos. 1 to 8 filed I.A. No. 10 in all the said arbitration suits invoking Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. In the said application, they sought a direction to the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 9 and 10 to deposit 75% of the award amount as required under Section 7 of the 1993 Act and Section 19 of the 2006 Act or in the alternative to dismiss the suit for non -compliance with the said mandatory provisions.