TENSILE STEEL LTD Vs. NATWARSINGH UDESINGH RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. K. M. Patel, learned Senior Counsel with mr. J. M. Patel, learned Advocates for the petitioners and Ms. Vinita Vinayak and Mrs. Sangeeta N. Pahwa, learned Advocates for the respondents. Having regard to the submissions, Rule.

(2.) THE facts leading to the filing of the present petitions are in narrow compass. They are -

(3.) MR. K. M. Patel, learned Senior Advocate has appeared with Mr. J. M. Patel, learned Advocate for the petitioners. He submitted that the Controlling authority has passed the common order in respect of the forty-nine applications filed against the petitioner-Company. He submitted that the impugned order of the Controlling Authority suffers from errors of facts and law. He further submitted that the petitioner-Company is an unit which has approached B. I. F. R, and the B. I. F. R has passed order rejecting the application of the petitioner-Company against which the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Appellate board and the order passed by the B. I. F. R has been stayed. Mr. Patel, learned senior Advocate submitted that the production in the petitioner-Company has been suspended since October, 1999. He, however, fairly admitted that the service of the concerned workmen were not/have not been terminated in accordance with law by the petitioner-Company before they reached age of retirement or expired, as the case may be. He submitted that despite such factual position, the workmen or other claimants on their behalf made the claim on the basis of their respective dates of retirement and in the cases where the employees had expired, the persons claiming to be their heirs had made applications on the basis of the date of death of the concerned employee. He submitted that in absence of nomination, the authority could not have passed orders in favour of the applicants. Mr. Patel, learned Senior Advocate assailed the order also on the ground that the Controlling authority could not have made the Managing Director personally liable to make the payment and that the Controlling Authority could not have issued any directions to pay interest over interest. Mr. Patel, learned Senior Advocate submitted that though the order recites that the delay caused by the applicants i. e. present respondents was condoned, the record does not contain such order and that the delay cannot be said to have been condoned. While assailing the impugned orders, the learned Senior Advocate also submitted that the Controlling authority could not have passed the direction for interest for the period, for which the delay was caused by the concerned persons. Mr. Patel, learned Senior advocate lastly submitted that there are certain persons also (who claim that they are the heirs of the employees) who have retained the quarters of the company and have not vacated the quarters, and therefore, in such cases, the controlling Authority ought not to have passed the impugned orders in respect of the persons who are in occupation of quarters. He reiterated the contentions raised by the petitioner-Company before the Controlling Authority which have been mentioned in the impugned order in Para 6. No other contention is raised.