- (1.) The Court : In this application the petitioners had prayed for a direction on the Sikkim Bank Limited to allow the petitioner to withdraw, from its account No. 178 maintained with the bank, a sum of Rs. 40 lac for payment of wages of its workers, and also for necessary directions on the Reserve Bank of India for the release of the moneys in that regard. The facts of the case in short would appear to be that the company had been wound up by an order of the court, and in an application by some of the creditors of the company a scheme was sanctioned by this court by an order dated June 16, 1989 and the committee of management assumed the responsibility of running the business of the company. By an order dated March 11, 1994 the Supreme Court directed the committee of management to deposit a sum of Rs. 8 lac every month with the Registrar, Original Side of this court. The committee of management was replaced by another committee by an order dated December 13, 1994, and this order had been affirmed by the court of Appeal, as far as the appointment of the new committee of management was concerned, by its order dated September 21, 1995. The new committee of management has been running the business of the company since, and the Sikkim Bank Limited was the banker of the Company. The major withdrawals in the account were for the purpose of fortnightly payment of wages of the workers. The aggregate amount of such fortnightly wages ranged between Rs. 55 and Rs. 65 lac. By a Notification dated March 8, 1999 the Joint Secretary, Government of India had forwarded to the petitioner an order of moratorium in respect to Sikkim Bank Limited, effective on and from March 8, 1999 upto June 5, 1999. By reason of the moratorium the petitioner was unable to pay the fortnightly wages of the workers and as a result the business of the company was threatened with disruption of its workers and consequently every likelihood of closure of the business of the company.
(2.) It was submitted by counsel for the petitioners that since its appointment the business of the company was being run efficiently and satisfactorily, and that large sums of money had been deposited in its account with the bank in addition to the regular monthly payments of Rs. 8 lac to the Registrar, Original Side of this court in compliance with the order of the Supreme Court. He contended that the Notification declaring the moratorium was not an Act of the Parliament nor had it been placed before the Parliament or obtained its sanction, and that therefore it did not and could be considered to have the similar effect of a Statute and accordingly could not be allowed to create any impediment which had in fact been the effect of its issuance, in the compliance of the order of the court, by which the petitioner was running the business of the company. At best he argued, the Notification was an executive fiat which in no way could prevent the performance of an order of the court. According to him, this was a case where the court should consider the theory of social-justice, and afford the highest priority to facilitate the payment of the lawful wages of the workers, as otherwise the workers some 500 strong, with their families, would face starvation and a possible law and order situation in the State. He stressed on the bonafide of the petitioners in that, the prayer was for the release of money payable to the workers only, while the petitioners took upon themselves the heavy task of arranging funds to meet the day to day expenses of running the company. He argued that once the company was in liquidation by an order of the court, there could be no interference in respect to the assets or the affairs of or relating to the company, without prior leave of the court which made the winding-up order and that no such leave had been obtained by the Central Government in issuing the Notification. He submitted that the company was being run in implementation of an order of the court, with an intent to rehabilitate the company, and the executive could not be issuing a fiat or in any other manner interfere with and stop the implementation of the order of court. He placed section 5 of the West Bengal Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act 1972 and argued that in the Notification under the Act, it had been specifically mentioned that it would over-ride an order of the court, but in the Notification before this court, there was no such provision and therefore the running of the business could not be disturbed by reason of the moratorium ordered in the Notification. In support of his submissions he cited and relied on the decisions reported in 60 Comp. Cases 526, 89 Comp. Cases 658, 72 Comp. cases 429 and 1999(1) H.C. Notes 81 (15th April Issue).
(3.) Counsel for the workers adopted the submissions of the counsel for the petitioners, and in addition cited and relied on the decision reported in 1987(2) SCC 588. He contended that subsistence of the workers was of the paramount interest to the law courts, and payment of wages to workers ranked highest in priority.;