SHARAD B PANDIT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As all these three petitions are identical in nature, the same are taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) . The respondent No. 2, as stated by its Counsel, has been wound up. The learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 states that the Official Liquidator is necessary party to this proceedings. I have examined this matter and I am of considered opinion that ultimately in case the claims of the petitioners for gratuity is accepted, the liability of the payment of the same is of State of Gujarat and respondent No. 2 jointly and severally. However, that amount has to be deducted by the State Government from the compensation to be paid to respondent No. 3, i.e., the amount found payable to the owner of the closed textile which has been nationalised under the provisions of the Gujarat Closed Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as Act 1986). As the State Government is a party here, I do not consider it to be necessary to implead the Official Liquidator as party to these petitions. The Official Liquidator has not to discharge of the liability of the petitioners as their claim pertains to the period earlier to the "appointed day", as fixed under the aforesaid Act.

(3.) . It is not in dispute that the respondent No. 3 was a closed textile undertaking which has been nationalised under the provisions of the Act 1986. The "appointed day" under the aforesaid Act, is 8th November 1985. Section 5(1) of the Act 1986 provides that "every liability of the owner of the specified textile undertaking in respect of any period prior to the appointed day, shall be the liability of such owner and shall be enforceable against him and not against the State Government or the Corporation". Section 7(1) of the Act 1986 provides that "the owner of every closed textile undertaking shall be given by the State Government, in cash in the manner specified in Chapter V, for the transfer to, and vesting in, the State Government under sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 3 of the specified textile undertaking and the right, title and interest of the owner in relation to such textile undertaking, an amount equal to the amount specified against it in the corresponding entry in column (4) of the First Schedule. Sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 7 of the Act 1986 stipulates that "where any liability of the owner specified in the Second Schedule is discharged by the State Government or the Corporation according to the order of the priorities mentioned in that Schedule, the amount to be paid to the owner under sub-sec. (1) shall stand reduced to that extent". In the Second Schedule, there are four categories of order of priorities for the discharge of liabilities in respect of the Textile Undertakings. Category I pertains to all dues including gratuity of employees in the specified textile undertaking. Section 11 of the Act 1986 provides that services of every person employed by the owner before the appointed date shall stand terminated on the designated date if such person is not employed before that date by the Corporation under sub-sec. (1) or (2) of the section and on the date of his appointment if such person is employed before the designated date by the Corporation under sub-sec. (1) or (2) aforesaid. This section further provides that a person whose services stand terminated under sub-clause (i) of Clause (a) shall not be entitled to claim employment in the Corporation as of right. Sub-sec. (4) of this section provides that every person whose services stand terminated under sub-clause (i) of Clause (a) of sub-sec. (3) shall be entitled to payment of gratuity and of compensation for retrenchment or closure in accordance with the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 if he is a workman within the meaning of the latter Act and payment of gratuity if he is not such workman. Subclause (b) of sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 11 of the Act is relevant and I consider it to be advisable to reproduce the same :