2001 (6) TMI 782 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against the order directing revision of pay in a school.
2. Applicability of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985.
3. Challenge to the order recommending winding up of a sick company.
4. Interpretation of the judgment in N.T.C. (I.D.A.) Employees Association v. Union of India.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged an order directing the revision of pay in a school to be at par with non-Government aided secondary institutions. The appellant did not dispute the order on merits but argued against it due to being a BIFR company. The appellant contended that the order for payment of money should not have been passed, citing the judgment in N.T.C. (I.D.A.) Employees Association v. Union of India. The BIFR had recommended winding up the appellant, and the High Court had upheld this decision in a previous writ jurisdiction.

2. The appellant was declared a sick company under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. The BIFR recommended winding up after determining the inability of the company to make its net worth positive. The High Court upheld the BIFR's decision in its writ jurisdiction, stating that there was no reason to interfere with the order. The appellant was directed to submit a revival scheme within three months, but no such scheme was filed or contemplated within the stipulated time.

3. The judgment cited by the appellant from N.T.C. (I.D.A.) Employees Association v. Union of India was found inapplicable to the present case. In the cited case, the question of a revival package was pending before the BIFR, unlike the situation with the appellant where the BIFR had recommended winding up. As no proceedings were pending before the BIFR, the court concluded that the appellant could not seek relief from the BIFR. Section 22 of the Act was deemed inapplicable to the facts of this case, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

4. The judgment was dismissed, with no order as to costs. The Chief Justice concurred with the decision. The court found no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge, as the appellant failed to provide any other supporting grounds for the appeal.

This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the legal judgment, providing a comprehensive understanding of the court's decision and the reasoning behind it.