JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. 1. Heard Mr. Clerk, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Manish Bhatt, learned Senior Counsel, with Mrs. Bhatt, learned advocate for the respondent Nos. 2 to 5, and Mr. Mishra, learned advocate for the respondent No. 1. 2. In present petition, the petitioner has prayed, inter alia, that:-- "11(a) Directing the respondent No. 1 to make an inquiry into the maintenance of the Provident Fund Account of the employees of the Vania Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bilimora and to make a report to this Hon'ble Court forthwith." 3. The dispute with regard to provident fund contribution in respect of the employees of Vania Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. (in liquidation) is raised in present petition. 4. Today, when the petition is called out and taken up for final hearing, learned advocate for the petitioner and learned Senior Counsel for the respondents jointly submitted that in view of the decision dated 13.2.2015 in Company Petition No. 188 of 2008, this petition is rendered infructuous and is required to be disposed of as infructuous. 5. Learned counsel for the contesting parties jointly submitted that winding-up order came to be passed against the company wherein the persons/employees represented by the petitioner union were employed. It is also submitted that liquidation/winding-up proceedings of the company, i.e. Vania Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd., commenced by virtue of winding up order passed in Company Petition No. 138 of 2008. It is further submitted that during winding-up proceedings of the said company, Company Application No. 292 of 2008 came to be filed whereby a scheme for compromise or arrangement and revival was submitted for approval by the Court. It is further submitted that while hearing and deciding said Company Application No. 292 of 2008, Hon'ble Company Court considered the provision of the scheme. It is further submitted that by the judgment and order dated 13.2.2015 in Company Application No. 292 of 2008, the Court has sanctioned the scheme for revival and recalled the order of winding up passed in Company Petition No. 138 of 1998 and Company Petition No. 141 of 1998. The learned advocates for the contesting parties relied on the observations in paragraph Nos. 35 to 38 of the said order dated 13.2.2015. The said observations read thus:-- "35. The learned advocates for the contesting parties relied on the observations in paragraph Nos. 35 to 38 of the said order dated 13.2.2015. The said observations read thus:-- "35. Insofar as the viability of the Scheme is concerned, the Supreme Court, in the above decision, has held that once the broad parameters about the requirements of the Scheme are satisfied, the Court will have no further jurisdiction to sit in appeal over the commercial wisdom of the majority of the class of persons who, with their open eyes, had given their approval to the scheme, even if in the view of the court, there would be a better scheme for the company and its members or creditors for whom the scheme is framed. The court cannot refuse to sanction such a scheme on that ground as it would otherwise amount to the court exercising appellate jurisdiction over the scheme rather than its supervisory jurisdiction. 36. In the light of the above discussion, when the broad parameters as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Miheer H. Mafatlal v. Mafatlal Industries Ltd. (supra) have been satisfied, this court would have no further jurisdiction to sit in appeal over the commercial wisdom of the majority of the class of persons who with their open eyes had given their approval to the scheme, who are affected by the scheme and who have approved the same. Under the circumstances, when the secured creditors, unsecured creditors and workmen of the Company have given their consent to the Scheme and the statutory provisions in respect thereof have been duly complied with, there does not appear to be any impediment to sanctioning the Scheme of Compromise and Arrangement. 37. For the foregoing reasons, the petition succeeds and is, accordingly, allowed. The Scheme of Compromise or Arrangement between M/s. Vania Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. and the shareholders, unsecured creditors and workers of the Company, as presented before this court, is hereby sanctioned. The Scheme shall be binding upon the Company, its shareholders, unsecured creditors and the workmen of the Company. Consequently, the order dated 18th October, 1994 made in Company Petitions No. 138 and 141 of 1998 ordering the Company to be wound up, is hereby recalled. The Scheme shall be binding upon the Company, its shareholders, unsecured creditors and the workmen of the Company. Consequently, the order dated 18th October, 1994 made in Company Petitions No. 138 and 141 of 1998 ordering the Company to be wound up, is hereby recalled. The Official Liquidator is hereby directed to handover the management and control of the Company, along with its assets and liabilities, to the petitioners for proper implementation of the Scheme. 37A. The sponsors of the scheme are hereby directed to deposit the amount payable to the workers with the registry of this court within a period of ninety days of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. Though the settlement was for an amount of Rs. 4,25,00,000/-, the amount towards actual dues of workmen comes to an amount of Rs. 4,80,27,071/-. As jointly agreed between the parties, the petitioners shall deposit an amount of Rs. 4,80,27,071/- with the registry of this court within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. If the petitioners fail to deposit the amount within three months, it shall carry an interest at 18% per annum thereon after three months till the date of deposit. The petitioners shall also file an undertaking to that effect within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Upon such amount being deposited, the registry shall depute a responsible officer to visit a suitable place at Bilimora, including the office of Silk Mill Workers Union (Majoor Mahajan). Shri Chimanlal R. Dhiver, Secretary, Silk Mill Workers Union will identify the workers or the heirs of the deceased workers. The payment to each individual workman/heir shall be made by way of Account Payee cheque in the name of the workman/heir as per the list submitted by the workmen. Upon the amount being paid to the workmen, the quarters occupied by them shall be forthwith vacated. 38. It may be noted that pursuant to the winding up order, the Official Liquidator has, till date, incurred considerable expenditure under different heads. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Official Liquidator may submit a statement of the expenditure incurred by him, which shall be duly paid by the petitioners before possession is handed over to them. It may be noted that pursuant to the winding up order, the Official Liquidator has, till date, incurred considerable expenditure under different heads. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Official Liquidator may submit a statement of the expenditure incurred by him, which shall be duly paid by the petitioners before possession is handed over to them. Accordingly, it is further directed that upon such statement of expenditure being furnished, the petitioners shall reimburse the amount, whereupon, the Official Liquidator shall hand over the possession of the assets of the Company (in liquidation) to the petitioners. The Official Liquidator is hereby discharged from the proceedings of winding up of the Company (in liquidation)." 6. It is submitted by the learned advocates that the scheme approved and sanctioned by the Court makes sufficient and relevant provision with regard to the provident fund contribution of the employees. 7. Mr. Mishra, learned advocate for the respondent No. 1 - Provident Fund Department, has not answered single query of the Court and he informed that he does not know any details and about any order and he does not have any information related to the said proceedings with regard to the arrangement/provision for dues of provident fund contribution in the scheme. He also submitted that the papers are with the Official Liquidator. The presence of learned counsel at the time of hearing of this petition is of no assistance to the Court since he has not been able to assist the Court with regard to any relevant details. 8. So far as the claim/debt of the workmen are concerned, in the said decision dated 13.2.2015 in Company Petition No. 188 of 2008 in Company Application No. 292 of 2008, the Court has observed, inter alia, that:-- "33. Insofar as the shareholders and the unsecured creditors and workers of the company are concerned, during the meeting held pursuant to orders passed by this court, all the shareholders and the unsecured creditors were present and have voted in favour of the Scheme. Insofar as the workers are concerned, though initially there was opposition to the Scheme, subsequently the workmen have arrived at settlement with the petitioners and have submitted consent terms whereby, they have agreed to settle with the petitioners for a sum of Rs. 4.75 crores. Insofar as the workers are concerned, though initially there was opposition to the Scheme, subsequently the workmen have arrived at settlement with the petitioners and have submitted consent terms whereby, they have agreed to settle with the petitioners for a sum of Rs. 4.75 crores. Under the circumstances, there is nothing on record to indicate that there is any lack of good faith on the part of the members or that the minority has been coerced in order to accept the Scheme." 9. From the submissions in paragraph No. 33, it appears that by virtue of the scheme a sum of Rs. 4.75 crores are agreed to be paid to the workmen towards all claims and debts of all workmen. The scheme is not on record of this petition, and it is not clear as to whether the dues towards provident fund contribution is to be adjusted/paid out of said amount of Rs. 4.75 crores or under the scheme any other amount is agreed to be paid towards the provident fund contribution dues, if any. 9.1 In this context, learned counsel for the workmen and learned Senior Counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 referred to and relied upon consent terms dated 14.10.2013, more particularly clause - condition Nos. 3 to 5 and submitted that the said agreement takes care of the dues towards provident fund. The said clause Nos. 3 to 5 of consent terms dated 14.10.2013 read thus:-- "3. Pursuant to various discussions held between the parties, it has now been agreed upon that all the workers of the company-in-liquidation, cumulatively, shall accept an aggregate amount of Rs. 4.25 crores in full and final settlement towards all their dues from the company-in-liquidation. Upon payment of this amount of Rs. 4.25 crores, the entire dues of all the workers of the company-in-liquidation either towards gratuity, interest thereon, retrenchment compensation, unpaid wages, D.A. difference, bonus, leave encashment, P.F. and any other emoluments under the relevant provisions of either Industrial Disputes Act or legislation for the benefit of workers, shall be treated as full and final settlement. 4. Silk Mills Workers Union has represented that it is the only union which is authorized to enter into this settlement so as to bind all the workers of the company-in-liquidation. It has also represented that it will obtain confirmation from each and every workmen in respect of this settled amount. 4. Silk Mills Workers Union has represented that it is the only union which is authorized to enter into this settlement so as to bind all the workers of the company-in-liquidation. It has also represented that it will obtain confirmation from each and every workmen in respect of this settled amount. Inter se apportionment of various amounts payable to the individual workmen shall be carried out by this Union. It is, however, clarified that upon payment of Rs. 4.25 crores as aforesaid, the sponsors of the scheme shall be absolved and no claim of whatsoever nature from any individual workmen shall thereafter be made either against the company-in-liquidation, upon its revival or against the promoters/sponsors. 5. It is agreed between the parties that the payment of Rs. 4.25 Crores shall be made to the Union and upon payment thereof, the Petitioners shall be fully absolved towards the entire liability towards all dues of all workmen. The payment shall be made as under: Rs. 50,00,000 (Rupees Fifty lacs only) Upon this Hon'ble Court sanctioning the Scheme. Balance Rs. 3,75,00,000 (Rupees Three Crore Seventy five lacs) within ninety days thereafter. The Union shall procure receipts from all workmen/their Heirs in respect of the said payment and shall provide copy thereof to the Petitioner No. 2." 9.2 Besides this, reference is also made to paragraph Nos. 37A and 38 of the order dated 13.2.2015 passed by the Court in Company Petition No. 188 of 2008. The said paragraph Nos. 37A and 38 of the said decision read thus:-- "37A. The sponsors of the scheme are hereby directed to deposit the amount payable to the workers with the registry of this court within a period of ninety days of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. Though the settlement was for an amount of Rs. 4,25,00,000/-, the amount towards actual dues of workmen comes to an amount of Rs. 4,80,27,071/-. As jointly agreed between the parties, the petitioners shall deposit an amount of Rs. 4,80,27,071/- with the registry of this court within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. If the petitioners fail to deposit the amount within three months, it shall carry an interest at 18% per annum thereon after three months till the date of deposit. 4,80,27,071/- with the registry of this court within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. If the petitioners fail to deposit the amount within three months, it shall carry an interest at 18% per annum thereon after three months till the date of deposit. The petitioners shall also file an undertaking to that effect within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Upon such amount being deposited, the registry shall depute a responsible officer to visit a suitable place at Bilimora, including the office of Silk Mill Workers Union (Majoor Mahajan). Shri Chimanlal R. Dhiver, Secretary, Silk Mill Workers Union will identify the workers or the heirs of the deceased workers. The payment to each individual workman/heir shall be made by way of Account Payee cheque in the name of the workman/heir as per the list submitted by the workmen. Upon the amount being paid to the workmen, the quarters occupied by them shall be forthwith vacated. 38. It may be noted that pursuant to the winding up order, the Official Liquidator has, till date, incurred considerable expenditure under different heads. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Official Liquidator may submit a statement of the expenditure incurred by him, which shall be duly paid by the petitioners before possession is handed over to them. Accordingly, it is further directed that upon such statement of expenditure being furnished, the petitioners shall reimburse the amount, whereupon, the Official Liquidator shall hand over the possession of the assets of the Company (in liquidation) to the petitioners. The Official Liquidator is hereby discharged from the proceedings of winding up of the Company (in liquidation)." 10. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that in view of the order dated 13.2.2015 whereby scheme for compromise and revival is sanctioned and the order of winding-up is recalled and the Official Liquidator is discharged, present petition is rendered infructuous. 11. Learned advocate for the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 also confirmed the said aspect. Learned counsel for the Official Liquidator is not present. 12. In this view of the matter, having regard to the submission by learned counsel for the petitioner, which is confirmed by learned Senior Counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 5, this petition is disposed of as infructuous. 2 to 5 also confirmed the said aspect. Learned counsel for the Official Liquidator is not present. 12. In this view of the matter, having regard to the submission by learned counsel for the petitioner, which is confirmed by learned Senior Counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 5, this petition is disposed of as infructuous. 12.1 It goes without saying that the officer who is deputed for disbursement of the amounts to the workmen will act in accordance with the decision by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Employees provident Fund Commissioner v. O.L. of Esskay Pharmaceuticals Ltd. [2011 AIR SCW 6490] with regard to the provident fund dues. With aforesaid clarification, the petition is disposed of as infructuous in light of the submission and statement made by learned advocate for the petitioner and learned Senior Counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 5. Rule is discharged.