EUPHARMA KAMGAR SANGH Vs. EUPHARMA LABORATORIES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EUPHARMA Kamgar Sangh, claims to be a Union representing employees of M/s. Eupharma Laboratories Limited, respondent No.1 in the petition. According to the petitioners, the Company was employing more than 100 workers in their employment. Somewhere in the year 1999, the Company stopped its activities by declaring lock-out in the garb of closure. It entered into various disputes and, as a result of defaults committed by the Company, the State Bank of India issued a public notice that property belonging to the Company was to be auctioned in August, 2005. The Commissioner of Labour (respondent No.3 in the writ petition) on 27th June, 2005, in furtherance to the proceedings taken, had issued no objection certificate for development of the property. The petitioner union on 10th August, 2005, wrote a letter to the State Bank of India requesting them to disclose the liability of Rs. 5 crores in respect of the workmen to the purchaser. For reasons best known, this was not done and the auction purchaser of the property, Prime Properties Development Corporation Limited, respondent No.2 herein, started its development work on the land in question. Being aggrieved by the action of the respondents, on 25th January, 2006, the petitioners again wrote a letter to respondent No.3 about their claim but of no consequence resulting in filing of the present writ petition on 18th November, 2006.

(2.) THE Petitioners, while heavily relying upon the policy dated 27th June, 2005, framed by the Government of Maharashtra stated that no objection certificate for development should normally be not issued without settling dues of the workmen. The letter reads as under: "Date 27th June, 2005. To

(3.) ANOTHER contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that in view of the statutory mandate contained in Section 529-A of the Companies Act, 1956, the dues of the workmen are to be paid in priority to all other debts and in the case of a secured creditor covered under Section 529 of the said Act, they have to be treated pari passu in relation to disbursement of their dues. This proposition of law can hardly be questioned, and would hardly be of any relevance in the facts of the present case. Firstly, the company was not in winding up and this Court is not dealing with the winding up petition. Secondly, nothing prevented the petitioners from taking steps before the Debt Recovery Tribunal for attachment of the said amount or claiming pari passu charge for their dues. Having failed to assert its right in accordance with law, the petitioners cannot take advantage of their own default.