N. H. Bhagwati, J. - (1.) This appeal with special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Patna dismissing the writ application of the appellant seeking to quash the proceedings in Miscellaneous Cases Nos. 26 and 27 of 1955 before the Industrial Tribunal, Bihar, Patna.
(2.) Gaya Sugar. Mills Ltd., a Company incorporated in 1934 owned a Sugar Factory at Guraru, District Gaya. An order for the compulsory winding up of the Company was passed on 4th November 1951, and by a subsequent order dated 1st February 1952, one Dhansukh Lal Mehta was appointed liquidator of the Company. In order to preserve the aforesaid Sugar Mills at Guraru in proper running order and also for the beneficial winding up of the Company the liquidator obtained under S. 171 (b) of the Indian Companies Act sanction of the Court to lease out the said Mills with all the lands, factory and residential buildings and machineries, etc. The Guraru Cane Development and Cane Marketing Union Ltd., were the former lessees of the said mills but on the expiration of their lease, the liquidator obtained from the Court an order on 3rd December 1954, sanctioning the lease in favour of Shri Krishna Gyanoday Sugar Ltd., the appellant herein, for the period 5th December 1954 up to and inclusive of 14th November 1955. The liquidator executed in favour of the appellant a lease of the said Mills on 6th December 1954, and handed over possession of the same to the appellant the same day.
(3.) The terms and conditions of the lease, in so far as they are material for our purposes provided that the appellant would be put into possession of the leasehold properties in a proper working order and would work and run the factory without any interference or obstruction by or on behalf of the lessor and would appropriate the entire income and profit thereof and the lessor would have no concern with profit or loss made by the lessee in running the said factory and would not be entitled to any sum or amount over and above the rent therein reserved. The appellant was not to be any way liable or responsible for any of the liabilities of the Company or of the liquidator or of the out-going lessees incurred whether before or after the appellant enter into possession except those mentioned therein. The appellant was at its own cost entitled always to install any additional or other machinery or machineries and erect godowns or structures for the purposes of and in connection with the running of the said Mills after intimation to the lessor. The appellant was not bound to engage any or all of the employees of the lessor or of the outgoing lessees or any of the persons who had been working from before except the 18 employees who were mentioned in cl. 11 of the lease and the appellant also agreed not to retrench any staff already employed at that date in the Factory at Guraru. (Vide cl. 13 (v) of the lease). The properties demised by the said lease were deemed to be in the control of the Patna High Court and any dispute between the lessor and the appellant in respect of the said lease was to be placed before the said Court for decision and the decision made by the said Court was to be binding on all the parties.;