9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1733X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Kunal Godhwani, Adv., Mr. Gagan Gupta,Adv., Mr. Ashok Kumar Juneja, Adv., Mr. Chand Qureshi, Adv., Mr. Irshad Ahmad, Adv., Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Adv. JUDGMENT L. NAGESWARA RAO, J. Civil Appeal Nos. 8597 and 8598 of 2010 are filed by President, J.K. Synthetics Mazdoor Union, Kota & Ors. and General Secretary, Rajasthan Trade Union Kendra & Anr. respectively against the judgment dated 28.07.2009 of the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur in Civil Writ Petition No. 2006 of 2009. Civil Appeal No. 8599 of 2010 is filed by M/s J.K. Synthetics Ltd. against the same judgment to a limited extent that the findings in its favour given by the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial (AAIFR) vide order dated 11.12.2008 were reversed without any cha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the said MoU the assets of the Kota Units of Respondent No. 2 were to be sold to Respondent No.1 for a total consideration of Rs. 15 crores. The liability towards payment to the workmen was to be borne by APPL. It is also relevant to mention here that a Tri-Partite Labour Settlement Agreement (TLSA) was executed between the First Respondent, Second Respondent and the Labour Unions on 09.10.2002. Another TLSA on the same terms was entered into between the First Respondent, Second Respondent and Staff Association on 22.10.2002. The total liability under the TLSAs worked out to approximately Rs.43.69 crores. There is no unanimity between the parties on the scope of the above mentioned TLSAs. The First Respondent claims that there is no com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing held on 05.05.2008, the BIFR took note of the complaints that were made regarding the sale of assets of the Kota units as waste/scrap by the First Respondent. The BIFR held that the interest of the workmen have to be safeguarded in accordance with the Sanctioned Scheme of 2005. The BIFR also held that the Second Respondent cannot escape responsibility towards the rehabilitation of the Kota unit on the ground that there is change in management. After holding that sufficient steps have not been taken by the First and Second Respondents towards revival of the Kota Units, the BIFR gave the following directions: i) "IDBI (MA) would expeditiously carry out spot inspection of the Kota Unit and submit a detailed status report to this Board re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ders issued by the Board. The BIFR directed the IDBI to carry out an inspection of the Kota units and to submit a report. There was a direction to maintain status quo in respect of the material/assets at the factory site of the Kota Units till further orders. There was also a stay on transfer/alienation of land or assets of the company without the permission of the Board. The orders dated 05.05.2008 and 30.06.2008 of the BIFR were assailed by the First and Second Respondents before the AAIFR. The AAIFR by its order dated 11.12.2008 dismissed the Appeals filed by the First Respondent and directed the BIFR to re-examine the exact position relating to the payment of dues to the workmen. The BIFR was also directed to continue the monitoring of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llows: "22 A. Direction not to dispose of assets: - The Board may, if it is of opinion that any direction is necessary in the interest of the sick industrial company or creditors or shareholders or in the public interest, by order in writing direct the sick industrial company not to dispose of, except with the consent of the Board, any of its assets- (a) during the period of preparation or consideration of the scheme under section 18; and (b) during the period beginning with the recording of opinion by the Board for winding up of the company under sub-section (1) of section 20 and up to commencement of the proceedings relating to the winding up before the concerned High Court." 10. "Sick industrial company" is defined in Section 3 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .P. State Sugar Corporation Karamchari Association and Anr. reported in (1995) 4 SCC 276 wherein it was held as follows: "It runs counter to the express terms of Section 22 A of the Act which confers a limited power on the Board to pass an order prohibiting a sick industrial company from disposing of its assets only during the period specified in Clause (a) and (b)." 12. Several contentions have been raised by both sides during the course of hearing of these Appeals which we have not adverted to as they are not relevant for adjudication of the dispute in these appeals. We express no opinion on the jurisdiction of BIFR under other provisions of the Act. It is open to the BIFR to review the implementation of the Sanctioned Scheme and pass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
