JAYANTA KUMAR BISWAS, J. - (1.) IN these writ petitions two orders one dated December 31, 2002, made by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (in short 'the BIFR') established under the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, and the other dated July 20, 2005, made by the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (in short 'the AAIFR') constituted also under the provisions of the same Act have been questioned.
(2.) ON receipt of a reference made by Kanoria Jute and Industries Ltd., 2 under Section 15 of the Act, the BIFR registered the requisite proceedings on September 15, 1987. From time to time it made orders with a view to exploring the possibility of revival of the company. Ultimately, it came to the conclusion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the matter pending. It noticed that the promoters who were before it were dragging the proceedings. Under the circumstances, by the order dated December 31, 2002, it confirmed its prima facie opinion that it would be just and equitable to direct winding up of the company. Feeling aggrieved, one Joydeb Mondal, on behalf of Kanoria Jute Industries Ltd. Sangrami Shramik Union, lodged an appeal with the AAIFR, in terms of the provisions of Section 25 of the Act. The appellate authority also explored the possibility of revival of the company. But ultimately it came to the conclusion that since no one capable of infusing considerable fund was available, there was no scope for framing and approving a revival scheme. It affirmed the order of the BIFR and dismissed the appeal by order dated July 28, 2005 and feeling aggrieved by these two orders, these two writ petitions were filed before this court. The first writ petition dated March 27, 2006, has been filed by Kanoria 3 Jute and Industries Ltd. Sangrami Shramik Union and its general secretary, Jiban Chandra Pramanik. As a matter of fact, this writ petition has been filed by the appellant who lodged the appeal with the AAIFR. The other writ petition dated April 11, 2007, has been filed by four unions of the workers and the employees of the company, and the respective secretaries of the four unions. The parties who were before the BIFR and AAIFR have been named as party to these cases.
(3.) THE position of appearance of the respondents before me, and their 4 respective stands are these: The AAIFR and the BIFR are formal parties, and they have rightly not entered appearance. IIBI, a respondent in both the cases, has not entered appearance, though it was duly noticed more than once. The Bank of India, a party to both the cases, it is submitted, entered appearance and filed an affidavit, but it has never appeared before me, after the matter was assigned to me, though I ordered service of notice on it more than once. FCI, once again a party to both the cases, has also chosen to stay away from the proceedings, though more than one notice was served on it. The company and one Shiv Shankar Pasari, respondents in both the cases, have entered appearance and filed an affidavit clearly stating that they want a detailed consideration of the fresh revival proposals by the BIFR. Kanoria Jute and Industries Ltd. Sangrami Shramik Union is a petitioner in the first case and the respondent in the second case, and it also has categorically stated that it wants a reconsideration of the whole matter by the BIFR. The State of West Bengal, a party to both the cases, has filed an affidavit clearly stating that the whole matter should be remitted to the BIFR for a fresh detailed inquiry and examination of the revival proposals. Union of India, a party to both the cases, has chosen not to enter appearance. The Employees' State Insurance Corporation and the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, two parties to the second case, have filed their respective affidavits staring that the whole matter should be remanded to the BIFR for examining the revival proposals once again and the question of payment to their respective dues. Bajaj Jute Machinery P. Ltd. and Purushottam Kumar Bajaj, a director of Bajaj Jute Machinery P. Ltd., are the two respondents in the second case, contacting whom the petitioners in the second case decided to take out their writ petition stating that these two persons had come forward with a fresh revival proposal.;