D RAVIKUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three writ petitions challenge the validity of Section 26 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The relevant portions of the said section run as follows:-

(2.) The 1st respondent in all the writ petitions is the Union of India, represented by Counsel. Respondents 2 and 4 in all the three writ petitions are respectively the abovesaid 'Board', namely the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (Bench II) constituted under the Act and the Registrar of the High Court at Bombay respectively. Though respondent 2 and 4 were served they remain unrepresented. Respondents 2 and 4 have been impleaded in these writ petitions since in respect of 3rd respondent-Company in each of these writ petitions, the 2nd respondent has, after making enquiry under Section 16 of the Act, formed opinion that it is just and equitable that the above referred to 3rd respondent - Company should be wound up and has forwarded the said opinion to the 4th respondent-High Court at Bombay. The petitioner in W.P. No. 21507 of 1993 and the petitioner in W.P. No. 2456 of 1994 are the employees of 3rd respondent-Company in both the writ petitions, viz., Basant Alloy Steel Limited, which is a "sick industrial company" as defined under the Act. The petitioner in W.P. No. 4427 of 1994 is an employee of the 3rd respondent in the said writ petition, viz., Basant Tubes Limited, which is also a "sick industrial company" as defined under the Act.

(3.) There is no necessity to traverse the averments in the respective writ petitions in the light of the submissions made before me.