PRAMOD MEHRA Vs. VIVEK TEXTILE MILL KARMIKARA SANGHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who was a director of vivek textile mills private limited is before this court seeking for issuance of a writ or certiorari to quash the order of sanction granted by the 1st respondent-state government persuant to the complaint vide at Annexure-A and further sought for a declaratory relief by issuing a writ of mandamus to declare that the award passed by the 3rd respondent labour court in ref. No 61/1984 dated January 28, 1987 is not binding on him or the same is not valid as per the principles of natural Justice and further sought for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the award passed in ref. No 61/1984 and further issue a direction to 5th respondent to furnish the particulars of the assets of the petitioner and the amounts realised therein by the sale of the petitioner's assets in respect of its textile mill at peeriya and also direct the said corporation to meet the statutory closure compensation payable under Section 25-fff of the i. d. act to the workmen of the mills urging various facts and legal contentions.

(2.) NECESSARY brief facts for the purpose of considering the case of the respective parties and to answer the rival contentions urged in this petition are stated as hereunder :

(3.) THE petitioner was one of the directors: of vivek textile mills private limited which was carrying on commercial business of manufacturing textiles at 1st phase, peenya, Bangalore. It is stated that it had employed less than 100 workmen. It is further alleged: that the company was running under heavy loss and it had borrowed money from the 5th respondent corporation (hereinafter referred to as the 'corporation' for short) to meet its financial commitments due to the loss, sustained by it. It had invoked its power u/ sec. 29 of the state financial Corporation Act, 1951 (for short sfc act 1951) and sealed the textile mills in peenya in the month of February 1982. Therefore, there was no way for the petitioner to enter the premises and could not (sic) do anything in locking of the mills by the corporation. Corporation had auctioned the property including the land, property and plant and machinery to adjust their loans advanced to the said mills. It is stated that the amount due to the corporation by the mills as on January 1, 1984 was Rs. 85,14,724. 97. The company was sold and the sale was confirmed on March 25, 1985 as corporation itself was the purchaser in the public auction. After the property was purchased, the plant and machinery and the I land was purchased by the corporation, it had sold to the gemini dyeing and printing company which is at present running the industry. In the month of February 1998, yeshwanthpur police arrested the petitioner with arrest warrant in connection with a criminal case No. 1095/1997 which was registered against him by the 1 ST respondent sangha for the alleged offence u/secs. 29-d r/w 32 and 34, of i. d. act, 1947 (for short called as 'i. d. act' ). The said criminal prosecution was initiated by the 1 ST respondent sangha on the basis of the authorisation given by the state government u/sec. 34 of the i. d. act for having violated the terms and conditions of the award passed by the 4th respondent labour court in ref. No 61/1984. It is stated that either the copy of the complaint or the connected documents in respect of the criminal proceedings referred to above were served on him. It is further stated that after obtaining the certified copies from the magistrate court namely the complaint and the connected documents produced along with the complaint, he came to know that the award was passed by the 4th respondent labour court in reference referred to above. That award came to be challenged by the first respondent sangha before this court in w. p. no. 13019/1987 and this court passed an order on September 25, 1995 by modifying the award that the workers are entitled to backwages from the date of closure namely January 31, 1984 till the date of award dated January 28, 1987. Further, it is observed that the workers can claim this amount from the company. It is stated that this petitioner had no knowledge of the proceedings in respect of the reference proceedings before the 4th respondent. It is further stated that the notice of the proceedings referred to above are not received by the petitioner as the address given in the said writ petition was also the address of the vivek textile mills. Therefore, he was unaware of the proceedings either before the labour court or before this court. On the basis of the letter submitted by the 1st respondent sangha on January 22, 1986, the address of the petitioner was given as indiranagar. The said address is also not correct. After perusing the documents obtained by the petitioner from the magistrate court, proceedings of the labour commissioner dated October 14, 1996 granting sanction in favour of the 1st respondent sangha for prosecution of the petitioner. He has not received the notice in the said proceedings though there is recital to the effect that the notice was sent to him.