Judgment Satish K.Agnihotri, J. 1. The petitioners, claiming to be the employees working with the second respondent, have come up with this writ petition, questioning the legality and validity of the e-auction notice dated 5.1.2015 published in the “New Indian Express” on 6.1.2015. 2. The case of the petitioners is that the second respondent had failed to make payment to the petitioners /employees. Further, pursuant to the default in payment of dues to the tune of Rs.13,89,04,335.35, the first respondent Bank had issued an auction notice to recover the outstanding dues on sale of the secured assets. It is contended that the petitioners have first charge over the machineries, which have been taken over on 08.11.2014. It is further contended that dues of the petitioners is about Rs.50 lakhs and the upset price for the auction sale has been fixed at Rs.10,63,00,000/-. Thus, the first respondent be directed to deposit a sum of Rs.50 lakhs, out of the auction sale proceeds towards the outstanding dues of the petitioners/employees working with the second respondent. 3. The issue, as aforestated, as to whether the bank authorities are competent to earmark Rs.50 lakhs towards the dues of the petitioners/employees cannot be examined in this petition. The petitioners have come up earlier in W.P.Nos.32224 and 32225 of 2014, questioning the earlier e-auction notice dated 8.11.2014 and the sale notice dated 22.11.2014. A Division Bench of this Court, while dismissing those petitions as infructuous, observed that if any future sale is notified, it is open to the petitioners to adjudicate their claims in a separate proceedings, if they are having any legal right to agitate. 4. In view of the aforestated observations made by the Division Bench of this Court and also in the proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, where the secured creditor had taken steps for sale of the secured asset to recover its debts, no interference at the instance of the employees is permissible, in exercise of the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, it is open to the petitioners to take appropriate proceedings under the provisions of law, if so advised, to secure their claims / dues from the second respondent. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.