- (1.) Heard Miss. Bushra Maryam, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Yashwant Verma, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 3. The Assistant Solicitor General of India has accepted notice on behalf of Respondent No. 1.
(2.) The Petitioner claims to be an unrecognised Union of M/s Duncan Industries Limited. The Respondent No. 3, the company, made a reference to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as the BIFR) in accordance with the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the 1985 Act) for taking measures. Petitioner moved an application on 21st September, 2006 before the BIFR for being impleaded as one of the necessary parties in the proceedings. The BIFR vide its proceedings dated 9th December, 2010 declined the request of the Petitioner for being impleaded in the proceeding. The Petitioner has come up in this writ petition praying for following relief: (i) to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari commanding the Respondent No. 2 to bring up the records of the Proceedings dated 9.12.2010 being held in Case No. 70 of 2006 and gets its Order quashed by this Hon'ble Court. (ii) to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent No. 2 to stay the proceedings of the Case No. 70 of 2006, M/s Duncon Industries Limited during the pendency of the present writ petition. (iii) to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent No. 2 to implead the Petitioner Association as one of the necessary party to the Case No. 70 of 2006, M/s Duncon Industries Limited is pending before the Hon'ble Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, New Delhi. (iv) to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to provide the copy of the revised draft of the Rehabilitation Scheme to the Petitioner Association which is being submitted by the Respondent No. 3 before the Respondent No. 2.
(3.) Miss. Bushra Maryam, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, in support of the writ petition, has submitted that even an unrecognised Union is entitled to espouse the cause of its members. It is submitted that it is not at all necessary for participation before the BIFR that Union should be recognised Union by the Company. It is further submitted that Petitioner's association has been impliedly participating in the proceedings since 2006 till 2010. It is submitted that apart from recognised Union, i.e., I.E.L. Employees Association which has been recognised by the Company, several other Unions, which are not recognised, are permitted participation in the proceeding before the BIFR whereas Petitioner's application for impleadment has been rejected. It is submitted that liability of the Petitioner's association towards the Company is about Rs. 31,14,00,000/- and since the Petitioner's association is not being permitted to participate in the proceeding, the claim against Respondent No. 3 shall not at all be included in the revised draft rehabilitation scheme. It is submitted that against the cancellation of registration of the Petitioner's Union, which was made during pendency of the writ petition, the Petitioner has already filed an appeal before the competent authority. It is further submitted that according to the principles of Audi alteram pertem, the Petitioner cannot denied hearing in the proceedings. In support of her submissions, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of ; Fertilisers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. v. E.S.I. Corporation,2009 123 FLR 491; Employees State Insurance Corporation v. Bhakhra Vyas Management Board and Anr., 2009 12 JT 441 and Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, 1986 AIR(SC) 180.;