Notice be given Dasti apart from usual service.
The other Unions seeking impleadment in the proceedings before this Court raised strong objections to the settlement.
The High Court took the view that the AAIFR had dismissed the appeal of respondent No.1 without giving it a reasonable opportunity of hearing and, accordingly, gave direction for fresh hearing of the matter.
A companyy of the agreement was brought on record as Annexure A to A.No.8 of 2006 filed in the Special Leave Petition on August 31, 2006.
Emphasis added The High Court accordingly set aside both the interim and final orders passed by the AAIFR dated August 3, 2001 and September 6, 2001 and remitted the matter for a fresh decision on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing to all the parties who were impleaded in appeal and who had sought impleadment in the writ petition.
At that time the companypany had on its hands, apart from a number of very onerous financial liabilities, large bodies of workmen both at Sawai Madopur and at Kanpur.
The ESI Corporation has dues against the companypany amounting to Rs.37,78,881/ VI.
The BIFR left it open to the many creditors of JUL to file suits before the appropriate companyrts DRT for recovery of their dues and to take further steps in that companynection as it had companyfirmed its opinion for winding up the companypany JUL.
In the scheme SS 92 it was stated that the strength of workers at the time of the closure of the unit was 3515, including 1030 workers employed in the quarry.
The AAIFR order that was set aside by the High Court had dismissed the appeal filed by M s.Jaipur Udyog Ltd., respondent No.1, and affirmed the order of its winding up passed by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction Bench II BIFR on November 24, 2000 in Case No.17 of 1987.
The appeal was based on the plea that the remand to the AAIFR would number serve any useful purpose but would lead to an unnecessary and unreasonable prolongation of the matter causing great prejudice and distress to the workers who had already suffered much due to number payment of their dues for a very long time.
On January 9, 1996, GDCL companymissioned the unit only to declare lock out seven months later on August 12, 1996.
The companypanys representative had also number given any specific answer to the query regarding treatment of the liability on account of various decrees obtained by secured unsecured creditors.
Finally, the BIFR passed the order, dated November 24, 2000, giving direction for the winding up of JUL with a number of ancillary directions.
However, the representative of SBI present during the hearing categorically stated that the proposals submitted by the companypany for OTS of the banks dues were found unacceptable to the bank and as on date, numberproposal was pending with the bank.
Against the winding up order passed by the BIFR, JUL filed Appeal No.22 of 2001 before the AAIFR.
On April 10, 2007, it was represented before the Court that a large number of employees had received payments in terms of the settlement.
In the year 1955, it was companyverted into a public limited companypany.
The Bench further numbered that such an OTS proposal, if any, companyld have been companysidered by the Bench only if the companypany had obtained prior companysent of all companycerned parties, as required under Section 19 of SICA however, numbersuch companysents were obtained by the companypany.
On December 4, 2006 when the Special Leave Petition was taken up the settlement was brought to the numberice of the Court and a joint prayer was made by the appellant and JUL that the dispute between the employees and the employer may be permitted to be settled in terms of the agreement and the AAFIR be directed to monitor the implementation of this settlement in letter and spirit.
The appellant companypany and the CWKS shall immediately prepare a statement of the retired workers showing the terminal dues of each of them.
It set up a cement factory at Sawai Madhopur for which the supply of raw material, i.e., limestone came from Phallodi Quarry at a distance of about 25 kms.
It was also stated that an OTS proposal was pending with SBI.
The workmen had given up three fourth of their dues in the hope and trust that the new promoter GDCL would start the unit and they would be able to keep their jobs.
Their hope was, however, companypletely belied and the workmen were left in a very pathetic situation.
As regards the companypanys objections, the Bench further numbered that the companypany had failed to submit their audited provisional balance sheet as on June 30, 2000, which would have enabled the Bench to appreciate the companyrect picture of the accounts at the time of the hearing.
It was alleged that the companymissioning was an eye wash and the promoters had numberintent to run the unit on a sustained basis.
The prayer was strongly opposed by the companynsel representing the State Bank of India and the other parties.
The settlement between the appellant union and JUL gave rise to a chorus of protests by other sections of workers who alleged that the settlement was fraudulent, companylusive and a sell out to the management of JUL.
The Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. has dues against the companypany amounting to Rs.4549.28 lakh.
The IRBI was appointed as the monitoring agency.
A number of impleadment applications were filed vide I.A.Nos.9 10 of 2006, 12 of 2007 on behalf of different Unions claiming to represent the workmen of JUL at Jaipur and at Kanpur.
It took into companysideration the material facts and circumstances and came to hold as follows The workers and the secured creditors had expressed their loss of companyfidence in the management.
Later on, in the proceedings both the BIFR and the AAIFR had the occasion to companyment that in order to make the revival of JUL possible under SS 92 the employees had made great sacrifices and had settled for the much smaller amount of only Rs.3 crores payable in three installments in place of Rs.12.41 crores being their lawful dues.
The order passed by the High Court was brought before this Court in appeal by a workers union, namely, Cement Workers Karamchari Sangh.
In order to meet the pressing liabilities, an amount of Rs.2.54 crores was marked for immediate disbursement.
The claim made on behalf of the appellant and respondent No.1 was disputed by others.
The companyt of the scheme SS 92 was Rs.38.41 crores, out of which Rs.18.12 was to companye from the promoters GDCL as companytribution unsecured loans, Rs.10 crores by sale of assets and the remaining Rs.10.29 crores by sales tax deferment.
No repairs were made in the plant lying idle for a long time numberraw materials were brought and numbersupervising, managerial or technical staffs were engaged.
The Ghaziabad Development Authority had a decree against the companypany for a sum of Rs.60, 83,600/ and it was pending for execution before the Civil Judge, Ghaziabad.
The AAIFR did number accept the certificate and asked the companynsel to make submissions.
The Consultant for the companypany was also asked to submit their modified proposal, but numberupdated proposal was forthcoming, and he only indicated that their modified proposal submitted in May 1998 was still pending with IIBI MA .
An amount of Rs.3 crores out of the numberlien deposit of Rs.10 crores shall be utilized for part payment of the terminal benefits to the retired workers.
Admit.
The appellant promoter Cannon Dunkerley Co.Ltd. shall negotiate OTS terms with SBI and also companye to an understanding with Cement Works Karamchari Union CWKS about the settlement of the dues of the workers and make a deposit of Rs.10 crores Rs.5 cr in two weeks from today and Rs.5 crores in another two weeks in a numberlien account with SBI.
The Cement Workers Karamchari Sangh, a workers union, sought to challenge the order passed by the High Court by filing this special leave petition before this Court.
The liability of JUL was restructured and after substantial wavers the restructured liabilities of Rs.53.86 crores were rescheduled for payment.
So far as others are companycerned, the views of individual workers shall be ascertained.
In 1991 a proposal for the revival of JUL came up before the BIFR.
Shall agree for labour rationalization programme as would be implemented, with higher productivity numberms.
The scheme stipulated that GDCL would take over of the management of JUL from its erstwhile promoters.
On that date, on behalf of JUL a prayer was made for adjournment on the plea that further proceedings in the appeal were stayed by the High Court.
However, during the pendency of the proceeding before this Court certain developments took place that tend to somewhat shift the focus from the limited issue as indicated above.
And in those circumstances the AAIFR proceeded to dispose of the appeal on merits.
Rule is made returnable within six weeks.
The PF department has dues against the companypany amounting to Rs.81 lakh.
In S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.4380/2001 filed by JUL the prayers were made in the following manner a pass a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, to quash the impugned order of the AAIFR dated 3.8.2001 in Appeal No.22 of 2001 Pass a writ, order or direction to call for a summon the records of the case from the AAIFR BIFR of Reference No.17, 1987 c xxx xxx xxx xxx d xxx xxx xxx xxx The writ petition was taken up before the High Court on September 4, 2001 and the order of the High Court was recorded in the follows terms Heard.
Hence, the Court felt the need for some investigation on certain issues of facts and as agreed by the companynsel for the parties, appointed Mr. Justice N.N.Mathur, a former Judge of the Rajasthan High Court, to make an enquiry on points indicated in the order as follows How many of the employees have opted for settlement with respondent No.1 Company and or respondent No.7.
Further, the companypany had number renewed their MOU with the workers.
The companypany JUL had also employed, on an average, 150 workers on casual basis and 200 workers on companytract basis.
Thus the appeal at its inception appeared to present for companysideration the simple and limited issue as to whether the High Court was justified in taking the view that the order passed by the AAIFR was in breach of the principles of natural justice and for that reason remitting the proceeding to it.
After some initial attempts at the revival rehabilitation of JUL failed, another companypany M s.Gannon Dunkerley Company Ltd. GDCL came on the scene.
To companye on 6.9.2001.
Two days later on November 6, 2001, the appeal was fixed for hearing before the AAIFR.
In case, necessary materials and records are produced to justify the claim, Mr.Justice N.N.Mathur need number ascertain the views of those who have opted for settlement.
As requested by the Court, Mr.Justice Mathur made the enquiry and submitted his report dated August 9, 2007.
CIVIL APPEAL NO 2076 OF 2008 SLP C NO.4088/2005 AFTAB ALAM, J. Leave granted.
JUL challenged the interim order passed by the AAIFR before the Rajasthan High Court and from this stage the matter becomes somewhat companyfused and murky.
Annexure 5 passed by AAIFR in Appeal 22/2001.
But as numbered above, during the pendency of the SLP the petitioner Sangh entered into an agreement with JUL GDCL.
The cut off date for the restructuring of capital and liabilities was fixed as March 31, 1992.
Issue Notice.
The Court, however, permitted the agreement to be implemented in terms of prayer b in the application I.A.No.8 of 2006 subject, of companyrse, to the rights of those Unions who had filed applications for impleadment and or had approached the Labour Commissioner against the settlement in question .
Pending service of numberice on the Respondents, there shall be stay of ex parte sic impugned order dated 3.8.2001.
GDCL was the main party to the revival plan.
Under the sanctioned scheme GDCL was to take over JUL, for its revival, along with all assets and liabilities.
Notice of stay application be also issued, returnable within six weeks and be given Dasti apart from usual service.
It is stated by Mr.Mukul Rohtagi, learned senior companynsel that about 1700 employees have already accepted the settlement.
List thereafter along with companypliance report.
In the post lunch session, a lawyers certificate was produced stating that apart from staying operation of the order dated August 3, 2001, the High Court had in fact stayed further proceedings before the AAIFR.
On August 3, 2001, the AAIFR directed the appellant JUL to deposit an amount of Rs.10 crores as the companydition precedent for admission of the appeal.
On August 26, 2006, while the Special Leave Petition giving rise to the appeal was pending before the Court, the appellant workers union entered into a bipartite agreement with respondent No.1, M s.Jaipur Udyog Limited JUL in purported settlement of the dues of the workers employees at Sawai Madhopur, Phallodi Quarries, Jaipur, Delhi and Chandigarh offices represented by the Sangh.
JUL was incorporated in May 1948 as a private limited companypany.
This appeal was filed against the order, dated August 2, 2004 by which a learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court set aside both the interim and final orders, dated August 3 and September 6, 2001 passed by the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, New Delhi AAIFR and remitted the matter to it for passing fresh order after giving an opportunity of hearing to all the companycerned parties.
The BIFR sanctioned the revival scheme by order, dated July 21, 1992 and it was called SS 92.
Failure to deposit the amount of Rs.10 crores, as stated above, will result in dismissal of this appeal.
