SHRIRAM FUEL INJECTION INDUSTRIES BALANAGAR HYDERABAD Vs. ADDL INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM ADDL LABOUR COURT HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Writ Petitions involve common questions of law and facts. They are filed against the common order passed by the learned Judge of the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court. Hyderabad in I.A.No.132 of 1997 and batch in M.P.No.38 of 1995 and batch dated 26-6-1997.

(2.) The petitioner is the Management called - M/s Sriram Fuel Injection Industries, Balanagar, Hyderabad. The party respondents in all the cases are the Workmen. They made a petition under Section 33-C(2) of the INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947, 1947 (for short 'the Act,) claiming certain unpaid wages in the respective cases. The petitioner by filing the respective applications raised a contention that the petitioner having been treated as a sick industry and the reference having been made to Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) (for short 'the Board') in Case No. 11/84, whereby a Draft Rehabilitation Scheme prepared by the Board for implementation has been pending, the proceedings before the Tribunal should be suspended by virtue of Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (for short 'SICA'). The Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court - arrayed as Respondent No.1 in all the writ petitions - after hearing bom sides, rejected the prayer of the petitioner to suspend the proceedings pending before the Tribunal and dismissed the applications filed for the purpose of the said relief. Aggrieved by mat, the present Writ Petitions are filed.

(3.) Mr. Krishnamurthy Amancharla, learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended mat Section 22 of the SICA is mandatory that all legal proceedings, contracts etc., would either lie or be proceeded with further, except with the consent of the Board or, as the case may be, the Appellate Authority under the Act, and, in the present case, without such a consent of the Board, the party respondents are proceeding with a petition under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. It is also his contention that a petition under Section 33 C(2) of the Act being in the nature of execution proceedings, it amounts to violation of Section 22 of the SICA and, therefore, the impugned order cannot be supported. As against this, Sri B.N. Rajaiah, learned advocate for the Workmen -respondents has contended that, in the first place, Section 22 of the Act does not apply as supported by the precedent of the High Court of Madras in M/s Metal Box India Ltd., v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1996 (1) LLJ 763, and secondly, the petition under Section 33C(2) of the Act, in this case, requires inquiry to really know whether the claim is an existing right for arrears of any wages or a determinable right so as to put the respondents out of the Court.