9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Summary dismissal of writ petition by the High Court. 2. Legality of closure and lockout of the company. 3. Sale of company property without workers' consent. 4. Validity of tripartite agreement. 5. Role and authority of the Representative Union. 6. Jurisdiction of Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) and Recovery Officer. 7. Applicability of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act (SICA). 8. Equitable jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Summary Dismissal of Writ Petition by the High Court: The appellant's writ petition was summarily dismissed by the High Court, which observed that it was not a fit case to entertain under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, noting that the appellant had alternative remedies available, such as approaching the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal or Labour Forum, which he did not pursue. 2. Legality of Closure and Lockout of the Company: The appellant contended that the company's closure and lockout were illegal as they were done without notice and permission under the Industrial Disputes Act. However, the Supreme Court found that the company had been incurring losses since the eighties, leading to its closure in 1995, and that the BIFR had already recommended winding up the company. 3. Sale of Company Property Without Workers' Consent: The appellant argued that the sale of the company's property was done without the consent of the workers and at a throwaway price. The Supreme Court noted that the sale was part of a settlement involving all stakeholders, including the Representative Union, and that the property was sold for Rs. 46.65 crores, which was above the distress valuation price. 4. Validity of Tripartite Agreement: The tripartite agreement between the company, the Representative Union, and the purchaser was challenged by the appellant. The Supreme Court found that the agreement was valid as it was signed by all three parties and that the settlement was in the best interest of all stakeholders, including the workers, who received Rs. 22.21 crores towards their dues. 5. Role and Authority of the Representative Union: The Representative Union's authority to enter into the settlement was questioned. The Supreme Court upheld the Union's authority under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, which gives the Representative Union exclusive rights to represent workers in the industry. The Court cited previous judgments affirming that the decisions of the Representative Union are binding on all employees. 6. Jurisdiction of Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) and Recovery Officer: The appellant contended that the Recovery Officer of the DRT could not have confirmed the sale. The Supreme Court noted that the Recovery Officer acted within his jurisdiction, and the sale was confirmed after following due process, including inviting claims from workers and creditors. 7. Applicability of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act (SICA): The appellant argued that the sale violated an interim order by BIFR restraining the company from disposing of its assets. The Supreme Court found that the BIFR had recommended winding up the company in 1996, and the sale was part of the settlement process approved by all stakeholders, including the BIFR. 8. Equitable Jurisdiction Under Article 136 of the Constitution: The Supreme Court emphasized that Article 136 is a discretionary power and should be exercised sparingly. The Court found no extraordinary flaws or grave injustice in the High Court's decision and noted that setting aside the sale at this stage would cause serious prejudice to all parties involved, including the workers. Final Order: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, stating that it was not a fit case for exercise of discretionary and equitable jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. The Court also noted that no secured or unsecured creditor had come forward with a grievance, and the Representative Union's decision was binding on all workers. No order as to costs was made.
|
