KARMCHARI KUMARDHUBI CONGRESS UNION Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, namely, Karmachari Kumardhubi Congress Union representing the workmen of Kumardhubi Metal Casting Engineering Ltd., has filed this writ petition for quashing the order dated 13-1-2004 passed by the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi in R.P. No. 33/2002 whereby one officer of the Bank has been appointed as Receiver to execute the warrant of attachment and as a custodian of moveable properties and also for quashing the order dated 17-11-2004 passed by the Recovery Officer directing auction sale of the moveable assets of the Company.

(2.) Facts which are relevant for the purpose of deciding this writ petition are that a company petition for winding up of respondent No. 4, M/s Kumardhubi Metal Casting Ltd. (in short the Company) being Company Petition No. 2/96 was filed and in terms of order dated 17-8-1999 official liquidator was appointed for taking possession of all the assets of the Company. Petitioner filed a Public Interest Litigation being W.P. (PIL) No. 2170 of 2003 for revival of the Company and for payment of legal dues to the employees. The said writ petition was dismissed with the observation to move the Company Court. Petitioner then filed petition before the Company Court in C.P. No. 02 of 1996 which was also dismissed with the observation that the petitioner may move the Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Appellate Authority.

(3.) In the meantime, respondent-Bank of India moved the Debts Recovery Tribunal against the Company for the recovery of the dues which was registered as R.P. No. 33/ 2002. In that proceeding, the Tribunal by order dated 13-1-2004 appointed a Receiver to execute the warrant of attachment as a custodian of moveable property. The Recovery Officer in the said proceeding further passed orders for auction sale of the move- able assets of the Company. The petitioner, namely, Karmachari Kumardhubi Congress Union, through its Secretary again filed an objection before the Recovery Officer in the said proceeding stating, inter alia, that since Official Liquidator has been appointed by this Court and final order is to be passed, the appointment of a receiver is against the law. It was further stated that the assets of the Company be not sold till the dues of the workmen are paid. The said petition was rejected by the impugned order dated 17- 11-2004.