MADRAS LABOUR UNION Vs. BINNY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging an order of the first respondent namely the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) dated 26.12.2006 read with the orders dated 4.8.2005 and 7.10.2005 in Case No.48/93, this writ petition has been brought forth by the petitioners Unions.

(2.) The Court heard the learned Counsel on either side and looked into the affidavit in support of the petition and also the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent.

(3.) The following would emerge as facts admitted: the B and C Mills, a Unit of the second respondent, when it became a sick Company, had approached the first respondent BIFR in the year 1993 for rehabilitation scheme. In 1994, the first respondent framed a scheme for the revival of the second respondent. The scheme came to be tested before this Court. A Division Bench of this Court approved the same; but, the scheme failed due to the non-implementation. The second respondent M/s. Binny Ltd. , approached the first respondent in the year 2000 to provide for another scheme for the revival of the Company. The second scheme also did not materialize due to the failure on the part of the promoters to infuse funds as framed in the sanctioned scheme. In the year 2002, the second respondent once again approached the first respondent for rehabilitation. An order was passed by the first respondent on 24.2.2003. But, the first respondent did not approve the draft scheme submitted by the second respondent. An appeal was filed before the appellate authority namely AAIFR, in Appeal No.83/2003 in Case No.48/93. The same was rejected on 9.5.2003. Then, the management preferred WP No.14856/2003 on the file of this Court. The same was disposed of on 24.9.2003 with a direction to the first respondent to sanction the scheme within the stipulated time. Accordingly, the first respondent by an order dated 22.10.2003, sanctioned the rehabilitation scheme for the second respondent, and it was also permitted to sell the properties at Madras. The second respondent obtained the reliefs to some extent. While the matter stood thus, the issues of the workmen remained unsettled. The petitioners Unions preferred a petition on 11.12.2006 before the first respondent seeking intervention and for appropriate relief. The first respondent sent a reply on 26.12.2006 stating that the second respondent Company had been discharged from the purview of BIFR on 7.10.2005 with certain directions, and in such circumstances, there is no question of representation that would arise, and hence, it was to be rejected, and accordingly, rejected. Aggrieved, the petitioners Unions have brought forth this writ petition before this Court.