UNION Vs. NATIONAL TEXTILE WORKERSRAMAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the applicant in company application No. 883 of 1981 which was one of the three applications filed by three different unions to implead themselves as parties in Company Petition No. 30 of 1981. The company Petition has been filed for winding up a private limited company under S.433(e) and (f) of the Companies Act. The learned Judge dismissed the applications holding that the applicants have no locus standi to oppose the winding up as such and that, therefore, they cannot be impleaded as parties in the petition. In this appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that the unions represent a large body of workers of the company, that there is a grave threat to their livelihood being affected in case the winding up is ordered and that in order to protect their interests they should be impleaded as parties. In support of this contention, the learned counsel relied on a decision of the Bombay High Court in Bhalchandra Dharmajee Makaji and others v. Alcock Ashdown and Co. Ltd., and others, (42 Company Cases 190) while disposing of an application for appointment of Official Liquidator or as Provisional Liquidator, pending the hearing and final disposal of the main petition for winding up the Court made the following observations :

(2.) THE learned counsel for the appellant in this connection also cited a decision of the Supreme Court reported in Fertilizer Corporation Kamagar Union v. Union of India, wherein the Supreme Court has made the following observations.

(3.) THE learned Judge, while dismissing the applications, has followed the decision in In Re Edward Textiles Ltd. (38 Company Cases 284). We agree with this view of the learned Judge. While disposing of a winding up petition, the Court should also consider whether it 'just and equitable" to wind up the company. That does not mean that everybody who is remotely interested in the company can file an application to implead himself as a party in the petition for winding up. Normally, we have to test the case with reference to the right of a person to file a winding up petition itself, though that may not be the only ground on which a person can be impleaded or not impleaded. But that in our opinion will be a very relevant consideration. THEre can no doubt that a winding up petition can not be filed by any union as such under S. 439 or any provision. Merely because, in considering the question whether to wind up or not, the Court has also to take the larger point of public interest including that of the workers into consideration, it will not clothe the Unions with any locus standi, to file applications for impleading themselves as parties or to be heard in the company petition. For the foregoing reasons, this appeal dismissed.