JUDGMENT - A.A. CAZI, J.:---This Company Application is made by the Official Liquidator for (a) directing Commissioner for Taking Accounts to set aside the portion of workmen's dues out of the sale proceeds in view of the provisions of section 529A of the Companies Act, 1956 and to keep it in separate account until the quantum of workmen's dues are ascertained and not to effect the disbursement of sale proceed to the secured creditors until that time, and (b) in the alternative directing the secured creditors, i.e., the respondents herein to give an undertaking to this Court that they would pay proportionate to their security such amounts as are found due and payable to the workmen's portion of the security as per provisions of sections 529 and 529A of the Companies Act, 1956. 2. I need only state the case of respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 had a security of the company's moveable and immoveable properties towards the amount which the company owed to respondent No.1. Subsequently on 15th November, 1972 the order of winding up of the company was passed in Company Petition No.27 of 1971. On 11th April, 1975 respondent No. 1 filed suit being Suit No.703 of 1975 in this Court for recovering its dues from the company by enforcing its security. On 27th February, 1976 a decree was passed against the company and the decree provided for sale of the secured property for satisfaction of the decretal dues. On 25th April, 1989 the moveable property of the company was sold for Rs. 3.2 lakhs and the sale certificate was issued on 11th April, 1989. On 24th May, 1985 there was an amendment to the Companies Act whereby sections 529 and 530 were amended and section 529A was added. On 17th April, 1989 the Official Liquidator wrote to the Commissioner for Taking Accounts to keep the sale proceeds of the secured immoveable property separately for being disabused under the provisions of sections 529, 529A and 530 of the Companies Act as amended in 1985. On 24th April, 1989 the Commissioner for Taking Accounts replied to the Official Liquidator stating that he could do nothing in the matter unless order were obtained by the Official Liquidator from the Court. On 24th April, 1989 the Commissioner for Taking Accounts replied to the Official Liquidator stating that he could do nothing in the matter unless order were obtained by the Official Liquidator from the Court. The Official Liquidator therefore submitted his report dated 22nd June, 1989 seeking orders of the Court for what he desired to have by his letter dated 17th April, 1989 to the Commissioner for Taking Accounts. This Court directed the Official Liquidator to take out a Judge's summons. Accordingly, this Company Application has been made by the Official Liquidator by taking out the necessary Judge's summons and the orders sought for in the Judge's summons are those which I have mentioned at that beginning of this order. 3. The respondents are opposing this Company Application and their case is that their vested rights cannot be affected adversely to them by the amending Act which came into force on 24th May, 1985. 4. Now, it will be seen that the order of winding up was passed on 15th November, 1972. At that time the respondents had certain vested rights inasmuch as they had certain securities and they could get their dues paid by enforcement of those securities and by keeping themselves out of the winding up process. If that had happened then their security would have remained unaffected by any claim in respect of the workmen's dues. That vested right of the respondents is affected adversely to them by the amending Act which came into force on 24th May, 1985. This amendment therefore cannot have that effect retrospectively so as to disturb the vested rights existing prior to 24th May, 1985. 5. Mr. D'Vetre, the learned Counsel for the Official Liquidator, urged that the Court is posed with only two questions, namely, (1) Is the company still in liquidation? and (2) Are the securities of the company available ? He submitted that if the answers to these two questions are in the affirmative then the provisions of section 529 and 529A as amended in 1985 would be applicable. He stresses the fact that section 529A of Companies Act speaks of the rights "in the winding up of a company" and it is on basis that he has formulated the first question. It is true that the two questions do arise for decision and it is also true that the two question would be answered in the affirmative. He stresses the fact that section 529A of Companies Act speaks of the rights "in the winding up of a company" and it is on basis that he has formulated the first question. It is true that the two questions do arise for decision and it is also true that the two question would be answered in the affirmative. But so far as the second question is concerned, the vested rights as prior to 24th May, 1985 cannot be adversely affected unless the amending Act so specifically provides. This is on the basis of the well settled law. 6. Hence, the Company Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. On Mr. D'Vetre's application the Commissioner for Taking Accounts will not disburse the sale proceeds for a period of four weeks from to-day. Office to issue certified copy expeditiously. Petition dismissed. *****