Judgment Sri N. Devhadass, learned senior counsel appears for the Union of India. We have heard Sri S.P. Shankar, learned senior counsel, who has made submissions on Misc Civil Application No.22107/2009 seeking for vacating the earlier interim Order dated 23.10.2009 passed by this court reading as under:- “Having heard Sri Sandesh Chouta, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri M. Rajanna, the learned counsel for respondent No.30. the caveator, who had entered caveat on behalf of the Employees Forum and Mr. Rajaram, the learned Central Government Advocate, who has appeared for the 34th respondent – the Company and who had also been directed by us, to taken notice for the 5th respondent – The Union of India, we are of the definite view that the entire action of the Company i.e., the 34th respondent – M/s. Bharath Gold Mines Ltd., embarking upon to sell the assets of the Company by inviting global tender for ascertaining the value of the assets of the Company and using that information as an input for pitting the 30th respondent-Employees Forum against the highest bidder and with the Forum of employees being backed by some unknown or undisclosed financial Company of foreign origin is not only a very serious matter affecting the interest of the nation and particularly, when it involves vast assets of a public limited Company, fully owned by the Government of India and unfortunately, the Government of India not raising its little finger to appraise this court of the developments hitherto, we are of the considered opinion that all further proceedings by the Company pursuant to the permission granted by the learned Company judge in Company Application No.993/2006 in Company Petition No.180/2000 in the matter of sale of assets of the Company in terms of the Annexures placed before the Company Court by the Company along with affidavit dated 10.07.2008 is stayed. The Company is directed not to take any further proceedings pursuant to these annexures and under the impugned Order, question in this appeal. Liberty reserved to the respondents, for modification if need be at a later stage and on bringing to our notice the need for modification of the Order and on pointing out the circumstances warranting the same. Hand delivery of this Order is permitted.” 2. Sri S. P. Shankar, learned senior counsel, submits that the applicant is a Co-operative Society formed to defend and protect the interest of employees. Hand delivery of this Order is permitted.” 2. Sri S. P. Shankar, learned senior counsel, submits that the applicant is a Co-operative Society formed to defend and protect the interest of employees. This Society was registered on 05.12.2004 more than four-and-half years after the BIFR recommended this Court for winding up the affairs of the Company for the reason that the intended object of the Company for which it had begun its activities cannot be carried on in a viable or practicable manner particularly having regard to the fact that the main activity of the Company being to extract gold metal from the ore that the Company was digging and that having regard to the value of the metal at that time and the cost of production. Such extraction of the metal from the dug up ore though was economical earlier due to various developments it has now become uneconomical and not viable, etc., and if such an eventuality should take place, the large number of work-force of about 3500 employed at the time, when BIFR passed the Order on 30.06.2000 will be rendered unemployed and to prevent this eventuality the Society was formed during December 2004, only to protect the interest of the employees, as winding up of the Company definitely is not in their interest, but on the other hand, it is detrimental to their interest and the employees being thrown to streets without avocation and virtually affected their right guarantied under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, etc. 3. From the order sought to be vacated, it is obvious that the Order came to be passed only to ensure that the assets of the Company, which as recommended by the Board is not parted with even without making commensurate efforts to revive the Company in terms of the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal Nos.1747 to 1757 of 2001 dated 26.09.2003. 4. Sri. S.P. Shankar learned senior counsel appearing for the 32nd respondent has made very passionate submissions to urge that the interim Order would affect the interest of the employees; if the proposed transaction for selling the assets of the Company sought to be wound up is not given effect to as per the cabinet decision to protect the interest of the employees is not implemented in the manner in which the cabinet has decided. The whole effort is to ensure that the cabinet decision of the Central Government is implemented in letter and spirit and in the process to safe-guard the interest of the employees. 5. As per the submission of the learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant, the Society proclaims that its objective is to protect the interest of its members and that can happen only if the Company is survived and not otherwise. 6. Sri. N. Devhadass, learned senior counsel submits that the decision of the Cabinet of the Central Government is found in the Annexure to the Memorandum of Appeal and at page 140 in the form of a communication dated 7/8th of August 2006 from Mr. Nawal Kishore, Director, Ministry of Mines, Government of India, bearing No.10(16)/2002-Met.II(G) addressed to the Managing Director, Bharat Gold Mines Limited, K.G.F. P.O. Oorgaum, Karnataka,. The learned senior counsel has drawn four specific attention to the following part of the communication figuring at para 2(ii)(b) and reading as under: “The Government has considered the proposal of the Forum and is of the view that the proposal of the Employees Forum for the transfer of assets of BGML to the society/society’s company can only be considered on the basis of the market value of such assets. An internal assessment of the value of assets has been made but the said valuation is only indicative in nature and does not bring out the market value. Therefore, the Government proposes to invite global bids for the assets of the company and make counter offer to the society/society’s company which will either be the highest bid received or the value assessment made by the in-house committee (to be re-assessed again at the time of transfer), whichever is higher,. The Forum will be asked to pay the amount so determined to the Government of India before the assets can be transferred to them. The Forum will be asked to pay the amount so determined to the Government of India before the assets can be transferred to them. In return for the above mentioned purchase preference, the society/its company will firstly, undertake to pay to the employees, in addition to the ale value paid to the Government, the difference between the STBP and the VRS on 06.11.2001; and secondly, employ on priority the erstwhile employees of BGML.” And towards the end of the communication it is indicated that such developments are required to be brought to the notice of the learned counsel appearing for the Union of India before the Company Court and elicit the approval of the learned Company Judge. 7. The entiresubmission is based on the observations said to be contained in the communication and a reading of this entire letter does not indicate that it is any part of the Cabinet decision or is a reflection of the decision already taken by the union Cabinet. 8. In our considered opinion this is nothing more than a response to a communication originating from the learned counsel appearing for the Central Government with regard to the proceedings before the learned Company Judge and the manner in which the version of the Central Government may be presented before the learned Company Judge and for seeking approval of the learned Company Judge for such proposal. 9. This communication gives an impression that it was a response to the Company Petitions filed before the learned Company Judge and the Order passed by the learned Company Court has been set aside in the Writ Appeals we have referred and quoted above. 10. Sri. S.P. Shankar, learned senior counsel appearing for applicant would clarify that the reference to the Writ Petition Nos.1747 to 1757 of 2001 is actually a reference to the Writ Appeal Nos.1747 to 1757 of 2001 disposed of in terms of Order dated 26.09.2003 quoted above and therefore such observations can definitely constitute an input before the learned Company Judge. The Order passed by the learned Company Judge based on ;such inputs should not be disturbed or modified in this appeal an in such view of the matter, there is imminent need to vacate the interim Order. 11. Appearing on behalf of the 5th respondent – Union of India, as also 34th respondent M/s BGML-the Company under liquidation, Sri. The Order passed by the learned Company Judge based on ;such inputs should not be disturbed or modified in this appeal an in such view of the matter, there is imminent need to vacate the interim Order. 11. Appearing on behalf of the 5th respondent – Union of India, as also 34th respondent M/s BGML-the Company under liquidation, Sri. N. Devhadass, learned senior counsel would submit that the Government of India is definitely not very keen on selling the assets of the Company as at present, but the earlier reactions of the Government was as part of a rehabilitation programme, particularly keeping in view the interest of the employees so that even if the Company is wound up, the employees interest is protected in any manner permitted in law and even by the employees being given a preferential option to take over the assets of the Company, in the event that it became inevitable for the assets of the companies is sold as a part of the winding up proceedings. 12. While the communication dated 7/8th of August 2006 does indicate some concern of the Central Government for some employees, the present applicant neither constitutes the entire class of employees nor can claim to represent the interest of all classes of employees who, perhaps, may be affected if the Company should be wound up and its assets are sold. 13. However, Sri N. Devhadass, learned senior counsel appearing for Union of India, which incidentally owns the 34th respondent-M/s. BGML, has placed a Memo on record, reading as under:- “It is submitted that the Central Government and M/s. Bharath Gold Mines Ltd. are withdrawing the present application to file a better application in the interest of justice and equity” 14. The learned senior counsel would submit that the Union of India is not very keen to press the application for vacating the interim Order and would rather withdraw the same. 15. This action to withdraw the application is definitely in consonance with the earlier submission made by Sri N. Devhadass, learned senior counsel, that the Government, Union of India is ;not very keen on transferring the assets of the Company as part of inevitable option to wind up the affairs of the Company, so that the Company itself is put to an end or brought to a close. 16. 16. We have also queried with the learned senior counsel for Union of India that if the prevailing price of gold metal in the international market having sored to four times the rates as it prevailed in the year 2000 in the international market, when the BIFR thought it proper to recommend to this Court for winding up of the affairs of the Company, as it was found that it was no more viable to run the Company on profitable lines. If the present trend in the international market and the price of gold metal having sored, the question definitely requires reconsideration, in fact, as to whether a Company is fit to resume its activities of digging ore, extracting gold metal from the ore and still said to be viable option or not a profitable venture is a matter which requires further examination at the level of Central Government and in consultation with experts in the field, at any rate it is definitely not viable for the Company to part with its assets in any manner as of now and a venture to transfer the assets either through the so called Society of the employees or directly to a non-resident Company or any buyers from outside this country, is definitely not in the interest of the Company so also it is not in the interest of the employees. 17. In fact, such are the sentiments and views expressed by the Division Bench of this Court earlier in its judgment in W.A.Nos.1747-1757/2001 dated 26.09.2008. If we have to go by the earlier judgment passed by this court, the present developments and the trends in the international bullion market, it is inevitable that the fifth respondent-Union of India, owning the Company should definitely reexamine the whole scenario and ensure that a public sector giant like the BGML is not unnecessarily wound up, but sustained, nurtured and for the benefit of not only the employees, but for the benefit of the society and the nation and such has to be the object and intent of all concerned. In the circumstances, it is inevitable for us to dismiss the application. 18. According Misc. Application No.22107 of 2009 by the 32nd respondent is dismissed on merits and the Misc. application No.284 of 2010 filed on behalf of fifth and 34th respondent is dismissed as not pressed in terms of the Memo. 19. In the circumstances, it is inevitable for us to dismiss the application. 18. According Misc. Application No.22107 of 2009 by the 32nd respondent is dismissed on merits and the Misc. application No.284 of 2010 filed on behalf of fifth and 34th respondent is dismissed as not pressed in terms of the Memo. 19. In the wake of the present developments and having regard to the above Order, we find there is absolutely no need to sustain the Order passed by the learned Company Judge, which is the subject mater of this appeal as also in the related appeals. 20. For this purpose, we have heard Sri Gopalan learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant in OSA No.32/20-09 and Sri Subbarao learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant OSA No.39/2009 and OSA.40/2009 21. Though, the learned senior counsel appearing for the parties in these appeals would point out that, not all the respondents are served in both the appeals and there may be some technical hitch if some respondents are not being served, we find that the major players in the drama are the Union of India, which owns the Company sought to be liquidated and the various organizations/societies formed to protect the interest of the employees; B.E.M.L. Ltd,. a lessee who is in possession of good part of the land of the Company sought to be liquidated, the appellant in OSA.32/2009 and such other persons who represent substantial interest, have all been served and represented by counsel. 22. We are of the considered opinion that it matters little by the non-representation of other insignificant players in the drama, who are all arrayed as respondents and who figure amongst others as Respondent 1 to 33 in OSA No.32/2009. The interest of all respondents is sufficiently represented and we have bestowed our attention to the interest of all concerned. 23. On an overall examination, we are satisfied that the Order made by the learned Company Judge, impugned in these appeals, is only to be set aside. Accordingly it is set aside. The OSA.32/2009 is allowed and all the Company applications leading to the Order questioned in this appeal are all dismissed. Re: OSA. No.39/2009 & OSA. No. 40/2009:- 24. These appeals are also allowed in terms of the Order passed in OSA.32/2009. Re: OSA. No.34/2009:- 25. Accordingly it is set aside. The OSA.32/2009 is allowed and all the Company applications leading to the Order questioned in this appeal are all dismissed. Re: OSA. No.39/2009 & OSA. No. 40/2009:- 24. These appeals are also allowed in terms of the Order passed in OSA.32/2009. Re: OSA. No.34/2009:- 25. Though, this appeal is listed before this court for noncompliance of office objections, we had given two weeks time. Sri N. Devhadass, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has pointed out that this is an appeal connected to OSA.32/2009. OSA.39/2009 and OSA.40/2009. which have been disposed of in terms of the above Order and has submitted that the purpose of filing this appeal is only to question the legality of the Order passed by the learned Company Judge, in the order, which has already been set aside. Having regard to the fact, that Order has already been set aside, virtually this appeal does not survive for consideration. Disposed. 26. We have accepted the Memo filed by the learned senior standing counsel, for sufficiency of service. 27. This appeal is also allowed in terms of Order passed in OSA.32/2009.