JUTE MILL MAZDOOR SABHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Jute Mill Mazdoor Sabha, Katihar through its President and 10 workmen have together moved this Court for an appropriate writ or direction for payment of wages to the workmen of the mill, Employees State Insurance dues and to save the mill from closure or going sick. In one of the affidavits they have also said that they may be allowed to run the mill and they would do so if they are paid their dues.

(2.) The mill was established as a private limited company which, it appears, got financial assistance from the Bihar State Financial Corporation and failed to re-pay. Mill's defaults attracted Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act 1951 and on September 27, 1983 the Bihar State Financial Corporation (respondent No. 2) took over the management and possession of the mill. The mill remained thus transferred to the respondent No. 2 until on December 11, 1984 it was (sick) transferred under a lease to Bihar State Industrial Development Corporation - respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 3 agreed to pay the current salary and wages to employees of the mill. While the mill thus came under the direct management of the respondent No. 3, the Central Wage Board revised the wage structure and it implemented the same paying to the employees their wages up to January 1988 and the wages for the month of February 1988 in May, 1988. The mill, however, ran out of work due to lack of Jute and it seems has remained without production since then.

(3.) It is admitted that the mill has not been declared closed, there is no retrenchment, no lockout and no other act to suspend the contract of service of the workmen. According to the petitioners, their original contract of service with the erstwhile private management (respondent No. 4) continued under the respondent No. 2 and the respondent No. 3, workmen, accordingly, are entitled to their respective emoluments, both arrears and current wages, except for the period they have been paid. When they went without any salary for some months, on April 4, 1988 they served a demand notice upon the respondent No. 3 and reiterated the demand by a notice served upon the respondent State of Bihar. Respondents were noticed before admission and after hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents on July 11, 1988 this application was admitted to hearing. When the case was listed for hearing before me on March 3, 1989 learned counsel for the Bihar State Industrial Development Corporation (respondent No. 3) informed the Court that it had surrendered its lease to the Bihar State Financial Corporation and that the respondent No. 2 had to answer the allegations of the petitioners. Respondent No. 2 on the other hand maintained that it was a financial institution and liabilities and responsibilities attached to the management of the mill were to be discharged by the Government of the State. Noticing, however, the predicament of the State Government of protecting the interest of the mill and the employees on the one hand and meeting the financial commitments on the other hand, and in view of the consensus emerging on the basis of a proposal advanced by the petitioners in the shape of a scheme, I ordered as follows:-