BALWINDER SINGH Vs. HIM ISPAT LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR . Sanjeev Kuthiala, learned counsel appearing for the official liquidator submits that the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is not maintainable as the remedy available to the petitioners herein to approach this Court by filing an application under Rule 9 of the Company Court Rules, 1959. There is no dispute with respect to this proposition of law. However, without treating this case as a precedent, what I find is that in each of the petitions it is the award of the learned Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal which is to be satisfied involving substantial number of workmen. Directing the petitioners to exhaust the remedy under the Company Court Rules would only result in delaying the proceedings since the matter is pending for determination and settlement of the claim before the first respondent who has also appointed the Chartered Accountant to finalize the claims against the company in liquidation. It would be in the interest of justice if these petitions are allowed and a direction is issued to the respondent that the claims submitted by the workmen in each of the petition be entertained by him. The delay in instituting these applications is of 11 and 27 days respectively which is condoned accordingly. A direction is issued that the first respondent shall determine the claims of the petitioners in each of both these petitions in accordance with law for which purpose the petitioners shall submit their claims before the first respondent on or before 4th July, 2012. The petitions herein shall file such documents/papers as are required/desired. Needless to say that respondent No. 1 shall determine the claims of the petitioners expeditiously. The petition is allowed. All the pending applications also stand disposed of.