B.AMIT STHALEKAR, J. - (1.) The petitioner in the writ petition is seeking quashing of the order dated 25.04.1995 passed in proceedings under Section 3(1) read with 4(1) of the U.P. Industrial Peace (Timely Payment of Wages) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 1978') whereby a sum of Rs. 1,89,00,000/- is sought to be recovered from the petitioner as well as the recovery certificate dated 25.04.1995.
(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Public Limited Company duly incorporated under the provisions of Indian Companies Act, 1956 and has eight units including a Steel unit known as M/s Modi Steels. There are several sections in the factory such as Electric Furnace 'B', Connected Con Cost Unit 'B', Electrical and Mechanical Maintenance Unit 'B', Rolling Unit 'A' and Electrical Maintenance Rolling Mill, Unit 'A'. It is stated that due to unprecedented rise in rate of electricity, the factory was suffering constant loss over several years and, therefore, it applied to the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) constituted under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. It is stated that BIFR by its order dated 14th March, 1981 declared the entire Modi Industries Limited including the Steel section as sick. On 4.10.1993, the BIFR issued notice to the concerned parties to file their objections as to why the company may not be wound up. It is stated that due to immense pressure upon the company its Electric Furnace Unit 'B' and Rolling Unit 'A' along with some other sections closed down through a notice dated 21.01.1993 which came into effect from 23.01.1993. At that time, the number of employees in the factory were 248. Since the Company closed down on 23.01.1993, the Additional Labour Commissioner, U.P., issued a notice on 25.01.1993 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why action be not taken to prosecute it in accordance with the provisions of Section 30-A of the Industrial Disputes Act (Central), 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Central Act'). The petitioner submitted its reply and contended that the provisions of Section 25-FFA of the Central Act read with Rul 76-B of the Rules framed thereunder were not applicable and that only Section 6-W of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the U.P. Act') will apply. It was also stated in their reply that Section 6-W of the U.P. Act was declared ultra vires by the High Court in Jayshree Tea Industries Limited Vs. The Industrial Tribunal, (1990) 6 F.L.R. 608 and reiterated in 1992 (2) UPLBEC 1139, M/s Indian Oxygen Limited (O.O.C.), Kanpur Vs. The State of U.P. and therefore, the petitioner Company was not required to notify the State Government of its decision of closure of certain sections of the Modi Industries. It is further stated that a criminal complaint was lodged by the Additional Labour Commissioner on 23.02.1993 under Section 30-A of the Central Act which was challenged by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the Court by its order dated 19.4.1993 passed in Criminal Misc. Petition no. 5461 of 1993 stayed the further proceedings in Case no. 363 of 1993 pending before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad. At the same time, another notice was issued by the Additional Labour Commissioner on 27.01.1993 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why proceedings under Section 6-S(2) be not initiated for illegal closure/lock out. A reply was filed on behalf of the petitioner on 29.01.1993 contending that since the number of workmen under the petitioner was less than 300, therefore, no sanction or approval of the State Government was required. However, the respondent no.1 without considering the objection of the petitioner Company with regard to non-applicability of Section 6-S(2) and 6-W of the U.P. Act, 1947 issued a notice on 22.10.1993 under Section 3 of the Act, 1978. The notice dated 22.10.1993 was challenged by the petitioner in this Court through Writ petition no. 6101 of 1994 and this Court by its order dated 17.02.1994 directed that the citation dated 10.01.1994 issued by the Tehsildar-Modi Nagar, Ghaziabad shall not be pressed against the petitioner.
(3.) It is further stated that on 18.03.1995 another notice was issued by the Respondent no.1 purporting to be under Section 3 of the Act, 1978 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why recovery certificate be not issued against it since the amount of dues exceeded Rs. 50,000/-.;