GIRNI KAMGAR SANGHARSH SAMITI Vs. MATULYA MILLS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these Notices of Motion are taken out by the petitioner-Trade Union. The respondent No. 1 is the Mill Company and respondent No. 2 is its Director. Both these motions seek to espouse the cause of 660 workmen of the 1st respondent Mill Company.

(2.) NOTICE of Motion No. 18 of 2001 seeks a direction to the respondent No. 6, i. e. B. I. F. R. (before whom the proceeding for revival of 1st respondent Mill Company is pending under the provisions of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985-"sica" for short), to deposit in this Court the amount of Rs. 2,76,04,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from June 1999. That amount is lying with the respondent No. 6 and it is the case of the petitioner that, that amount should be disbursed towards the unpaid wages of the employees. Prayer (aa) of the motion is for an order to disburse the unpaid wages of the employees from this deposit. This motion is opposed by the respondent No. 1 through a reply by one of its Directors. It is also opposed by respondent No. 7 which is the representative Union in the industry through the reply of its working President. The stand of the respondent Nos. 1 and 7 has been that these amounts should not be released merely as payments towards unpaid wages, but the same should be paid to the employees as part of overall settlement under which the employees give up the idea of revival of the Mill and opt for voluntary retirement.-A. Notice of Motion No. 233 of 2001 is a related motion which is also taken out by the same petitioner-Trade Union. Prayer (a) of this motion is to restrain the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 from dismantling and/or selling or removing the machinery from the premises of respondent No. 1 Mill. Prayer (b) is to direct them to allow the workers to mark their attendance without first tendering resignation letters. Prayer (c) is to seek police protection and prayer (d) is to direct respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to disclose the names of the traders to whom the machinery has been sold. An ad interim order in terms of prayers (a) to (d) has been running in this matter.

(3.) SINCE both these motions are inter-connected, they are heard together. Mr. Colin Gonsalves has appeared for the petitioner in both the motions. Mr. K. K. Singhvi, Senior Advocate with Mr. B. B. Saraf has appeared for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and Ms. Naina Buch has appeared for respondent No. 7.