P. BALAKRISHNAN & ORS. Vs. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Claiming themselves, to be the workers of M/s.Gold King Tex India Private Limited, Koundapalayam Village, Rayarpalayam Post, Namakkal and their wages, have not been paid, for a considerable period, from 2013, and being aggrieved by the action taken by the Authorised Officer, State Bank of India, Erode, Stressed Assets Management Branch, Coimbatore, the 2nd respondent, bringing both immovable and movable properties of M/s. Gold King Tex India Private Limited, the 1st respondent/borrower, for auction, placing reliance on section 529(A) of the Companies Act, 1956, and also inviting the attention of this Court to the attachment order under Section 8 of the Employees Provident Fund Act, 1952 dated 02.12.2015, against the 1st respondent Company, the petitioners/workers have sought for a writ of mandamus, directing the Authorised Officer, State Bank of India, Erode, Stressed Assets Management Branch, Coimbatore, the 2nd respondent, to pay the pending wages and other dues, out of the sale proceeds of machineries and instruments of the M/s.Gold King Tex India Private Limited, 1st respondent. Petitioners have relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Workers of M/s. Rohtas Industries Ltd. v. M/s. Rohtas Industries Ltd., reported in 1987 SCR (2) 1216.

(2.) Opposing the prayer sought for, Authorised Officer and Assistant General Manager, Stressed Assets Management Branch, Coimbatore, in his counter affidavit has submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable, in law and on facts. According to the Authorised Officer, the 1st respondent Company is not in liquidation and Section 13(9) of the SARFAESI Act, can be invoked, if only the company is in liquidation and under the control of the Official Liquidator and in such circumstances, sale proceeds shall be distributed in accordance with the provisions of section 529 A of the Companies Act, 1956 (1/1956).

(3.) The Authorised Officer, has further submitted that there is no privity of contract between the petitioners and the bank, and therefore, the petitioners, as workers, cannot prevent the secured creditor from initiating action, under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, to recover a huge outstanding loan amount of Rs. 38,35,00,000/- from the 1st respondent company. Reliance has also been made on the decision of this Court, in a batch of writ petitions viz., W.P. Nos. 8693 of 2009 etc., batch dated 07.08.2009, wherein, this Court held that when there is no provision under the Industrial Disputes Act or under the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, which makes the dues of a workmen, as first charge on the property.