RICHARDSON AND CRUDDAS LTD Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT No. 2 ' M/s Richardson and Cruddas (1972) Ltd. is a wholly government owned company which has gone sick for the past nearly fifteen years resulting in a reference being made for its rehabilitation before the BIFR under sick Industrial Company (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. Efforts appear to have been made to explore the possibilities of its rehabilitation by appointing different operating agencies and inviting different rehabilitation proposals from them. The BIFR, eventually, came to the conclusion that the company could not be revived and that the only option left was to wind-up the same. An order directing winding up of the company was accordingly passed by the BIFR on 25th july, 2003. Aggrieved by the said order, the Government of India, the Sick industrial Company concerned and the workers employed in the same, filed three different appeals before the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial reconstruction, New Delhi. While the said appeals were pending the petitioner employees Union appears to have presented a draft scheme before the Appellate authority for the proposed rehabilitation of the company. That scheme was referred by the AAIFR to the operating agency, namely, the State Bank of India for the same and submitted to the AAIFR on 7th February, 2005. The petitioner's case appears to be that the scheme so approved by the operating agency was upon consideration by the AAIFR duly sanctioned and circulated. No such order of sanction or specific approval of the scheme has been passed by the AAIFR or is available on record. On the contrary, the AAIFR has by an order dated 24th september, 2007 impugned in this writ petition recorded a specific finding that the scheme presented by the operating agency was not tenable and could not, therefore, be circulated. The AAIFR was of the opinion that a fresh revival proposal had to be formulated which could then be considered by the BIFR after giving an opportunity to the parties concerned to submit their respective proposals. The AAIFR observed:-

(2.) THE present writ petition filed by the Union assails the above direction. Appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Narula, made a two fold submission before us. Firstly, he contended that keeping in view the observations made by aaifr in the order under challenge the Board of Industrial and Financial reconstruction was likely to get prejudiced against the scheme presented by the union while considering the proposals for revival of the company. He contended that the petitioner Union could be protected against any such prejudice by making a suitable observation to that effect. Secondly, he argued that the efforts for revival of the sick company have remained pending before the BIFR for a considerable period of time and unless this Court were to fix a timeframe within which the entire issue is examined and finally disposed of, the matter is likely to hang fire for an indefinitely long time to come.

(3.) M/s J. P. Sengh and Ranvir Singh, counsel appearing for the respondents have no objection to both these submissions being accepted and this Court making appropriate observations in regard to the same. It was submitted by them that since the matter has been remanded back to the BIFR for reconsideration of the proposals, all the parties are free to file their revised proposal and advance arguments in support of the same, in which event the BIFR would examine the merits of each proposal and take appropriate measures. So also any observation made by this Court regarding expeditious conclusion of the proceedings would be in the interest of all concerned.