- (1.) LEAVE granted.
(2.) THE present appeal is directed against summary dismissal of writ petition No. 5664 of 2006 on February 12, 2007 by the High Court of judicature at Bombay observing that it was not a fit case to entertain the petition in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution. Factual BACKGROUND : The case has a chequered history and with a view to appreciate the contentions raised by the parties, the background is required to be kept in view. Laxmi Vishnu textile Mills ('company' for short)--respondent no. 1 herein was formerly known as Vishnu Cotton mills Ltd. It was registered on May 19, 1908 under the Indian Companies Act, 1873 (then in force ). It was operating through two cotton textile mills, namely, (i) Laxmi Mill, and (ii)Vishnu Mill. Somewhere in the year 1961, Laxmi mill was merged in Vishnu Mill and was given the present name i. e. Laxmi Vishnu Textile mills Ltd. There were large number of workers in the mill and there was considerable profit in the business. By the passage of time, however, the Company started incurring losses and things turned worse in later eighties. Proceedings under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to 'sica') had been initiated. On april 28, 1994, the Board of Industrial and financial Reconstruction, New Delhi ('bifr' for short) issued an order declaring the Company as 'sick unit' and in exercise of powers conferred on it under Section 22a of the Act, it restrained the promoters/management from disposing or transferring its assets described in the order without prior permission of the board. It was also stated that violation of the order passed by the Board would be dealt with under Section 33 of SICA. It is also the case of the appellant that without issuing notice and without obtaining permission from the Appropriate authority as required under Sections 25-O and 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the management of the Company resorted to illegal closure and lockout of the Company. Thus, from february 28, 1995, the Company is illegally closed.
(3.) ACCORDING to the appellant, BIFR considered the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety and on December 30, 1996 passed an order recording its satisfaction as required by sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Act that it was not possible for the company to revive and it was just and equitable that Company should be wound up. The opinion was forwarded to the High Court of Judicature at Bombay with a request that banks and financial institutions may explore the possibility of sale of the assets of the company. It was proposed to entrust the work of sale of assets to State Bank of India (SBI), the lead bank in the case. The Operative Agency (OA), namely, IDBI was directed to hold a joint meeting of all participating banks and financial institutions and to furnish a detailed report on sale of assets of the company through SBI latest by February 28, 1997. It may be stated at this stage that sbi was one of the major creditors. It initiated recovery proceedings against the company by filing Original Application No. 2638 of 1999 and got a decree from Debt Recovery tribunal (DRT)-1, Mumbai for a sum of Rs. 84. 39 crores with interest. Other financial institutions had also initiated proceedings for recovery of their dues. Receiver was appointed by DRT-1, Mumbai, who took possession of the properties of the Company. Steps were also taken to protect properties by employing police force. The Receiver also met representatives of rashtriya Girni Kamgar Sangh, recognized Union--respondent No. 8 herein. The Receiver was in possession of the property except those properties which were occupied by the employees who were in service of the Company and were residing in the quarters provided to them while they were in employment. Possession of the machinery and other movable properties of the company was also taken over. Since the dues of workers were neither settled nor paid, several workers approached Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 for gratuity. Orders were passed in their favour directing the Company to pay full amount of gratuity with interest thereon. The said amount was also not paid. Meanwhile, Trans Asia Global Company--respondent No. 7 expressed its desire to purchase the property. According to the appellant, respondent No. 8--Union had no authority to represent the interests of workers of respondent No. 1--Company and yet on March 8, 2005, it purportedly entered into a tripartite agreement with respondent No. 1--Company, respondent No. 8--Union and respondent No. 7-M/s trans Asia Global Company. Respondent No. 1-Company under the tripartite agreement sold the property to respondent No. 7 for Rs. 46. 65 crores. The claim of the workmen was settled at rs. 22. 21 crores whereas in fact, the claim of the workmen was more than Rs. 132 crores. The purported agreement never brought to the notice of the workmen and they were kept in complete dark. The property of the Company was worth rs. 250 crores which could have satisfied claims of SBI, legitimate dues of the workmen as also of financial institutions and other creditors. According to the appellant, the other agreement was also entered into between secured and unsecured creditors, labour representatives, the Company and the purchaser on April 20, 2005. The agreement states that all secured creditors, unsecured creditors and representatives of the workmen had a meeting and they all agreed on One Time Settlement (OTS) and accepted the scheme of selling the entire property by a private treaty to respondent No. 7 and accordingly the property was sold. The action, however, was totally illegal, uncalled for and in contravention of various provisions of law.;