Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 524 (ORI)

Bharat Senapati v. State of Odisha

2016-07-15

S.N.PRASAD

body2016
JUDGMENT : S.N. Prasad, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the opposite parties to consider the grievance of the petitioners for their settlement or make some arrangement for employment of the petitioners. 2. The brief fact of the case of the petitioners is that the petitioners are erstwhile workmen of M/s. SN Corporation Ltd., a joint venture unit of Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (IDCOL) established in the year 1982 in technical collaboration with Sakamura of Japan to manufacture High Tensil Fastners at Gundichapada of Dhenkanal district in State of Orissa. The company became sick due to non-availability of working capital, mismanagement and misappropriation of fund for which the unit could not achieve the minimum capacity. The management filed an application under Section 17(2) of Sick Industrial Companies (Spl. Provision) Act, 1985 before the Board for Industrial Finance and Rehabilitation (BIFR) for rehabilitation of the company vide case No. 22/1990 but due to non-cooperation of IDCOL, the promoter of the unit, the approved scheme dated 15.7.1990 became practically a non-starter and not implemented. The BIFR passed an order on 17.4.1997 for winding up of the company U/s.20(1) of the Act, 1985, against the said order the IDCOL and the management filed an appeal before Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (AAIFR) with a draft rehabilitation scheme, which was sanctioned on 23.7.1998 with immediate effect and the appeal was allowed. Instead of waiting for the final order and sanctioned scheme dtd.23.7.1998, the management filed the closure application on 6.4.1998 under section 25(o) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Secretary, Labour and Employment, Government of Orissa. The management closed down the company on 23.11.1998 after the order passed by the AAIFR on 23.7.1998. The management terminated 262 workmen coming under I.D. Act, 1947 those are listed in the closure application and also terminated the Managers, officers and Supervisors those are neither listed in the closure application nor coming under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 without paying the statutory dues like arrear salary, conveyance, medical allowances, bonus, gratuity etc. and compensation in lieu of termination. The management paid only the statutory dues after 6 months of termination. and compensation in lieu of termination. The management paid only the statutory dues after 6 months of termination. The management have sold some costly movable items/assets of the company valued more than crore during the closure period which is against the order passed by this court in O.J.C. No.16610 of 1998 dtd.8.12.1998 and Section 356(2) of the Companies Act, 1956. This court published a public notice in the daily news paper inviting objections and suggestions on “Why the company will not be wound up” vide Company Petition Case No.29 of 2003 intervening in the matter of one M/s. Imperial Fasteners (P) Ltd. New Delhi, stated that he is prepared to purchase entire assets of the company including land, building, plant and machinery at a price of Rs.295 lakhs and thereafter run the industrial unit at the existing place employing the local workmen who were earlier employed in the unit. Accordingly, this court has passed an order on 20.2.2004 to submit the opinion of Assets Disposal Committee Report. The IDCOL, the promoter published a tender notice in local daily newspaper inviting expression of interest and M/s. Imperial Fasteners (P) Ltd. being the highest bidder, their bid has been accepted. At the time of closure of the unit 317 nos. of employees were working, out of which 262 nos. of employees were covered under the Industrial Dispute Act. At the time when the unit was declared closed the employees were given three months salary, i.e. in the year 1998. In this pretext this writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the opposite parties for their settlement or for making some arrangement for employment of the petitioners under the writ jurisdiction of this court. 3. Opposite party no.4 – Industrial Development Corporation (IDCOL) filed detail counter affidavit that the writ petition is not maintainable on the ground that the Labour and Employment Department of Orissa has passed an order on 4.6.1998 on the application filed by M.D., S.N. Corporation Ltd. according permission for closure of the corporation for the reasons shown in the application and considering the reason that the competent authority granted permission for closure of the undertaking applied for the reasons stated therein with an agreement to pay the closure compensation due, unpaid wages and the contributions towards E.P.F. and E.S.I.C. of the workmen. In pursuance to the said agreement the closure compensation along with other dues has already been paid in favour of the workmen. The S.N. Corporation Employees Union filed a writ petition before this court being O.J.C. No.16610 of 1998 praying for quashing of the order dated 4.6.1998 as also the order dated 21.11.1998 but in the meanwhile the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) recommended vide order dated 3.4.2003 that S. N. Corporation Ltd. would be wound up as per the provision of section 20(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. Thereafter the matter has been referred before the Company Court of this court which has been registered as Company Petition No.29 of 2003 and the entire assets of the company were sold in the year 2005 to pay off the dues of its creditors under the order of Hon’ble Company Court. It has been stated that one Sri Madhusudan Rout and other ex-employees of S.N. Corporation Ltd. filed writ petition before being court being W.P.(C) No.14492 of 2006 during pendency of O.J.C. No.1661 of 1998 seeking rehabilitation of the employees of S.N. Corporation Ltd. but this court has declined to entertain the writ petition giving liberty to the petitioners to approach the forum under Industrial Disputes Act, if so advised. In the light of these situations the writ petition is not maintainable. 4. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the documents on record. After going through the record it is evident that the sole dispute raised by the petitioner is regarding their rehabilitation and settlement of the dues for the reason that earlier where they were working in S. N. Corporation Ltd. and the corporation has been closed but without considering for their rehabilitation and settlement of dues. From the pleadings it is evident that total disputed question of fact has been raised in this writ petition and that is the reason on earlier occasion in one writ petition this court has already declined to interfere with respect to the grievance of the petitioners which is exactly the same which has been raised in this writ petition, i.e. W.P.(C) No.14492 of 2006 order passed therein has been referred at paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit of opposite party no.4 which is being reproduced herein below:- “Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. This writ application has been filed by the retrenched workers of M/s. S.N. Corporation, which has already been closed. It is alleged that the IDCOL has promised them that, apart from receiving the retrenchment benefits the petitioners shall be rehabilitated in some other establishments. A prayer is made for appropriate directions in this regard. We are not inclined to entertain the writ petition and accede to the prayer of the petitioners. It is open for the petitioners to approach the forum under Industrial Disputes Act, if so advised. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.” For the self same relief this writ petition has been filed, but it is no where been stated that what outcome has come after the order passed by this court in W.P.(C) No.14492 of 2006 and without disclosing the same the second writ petition has been filed for the same set of relief. This petition has been filed invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India regarding rehabilitation and settlement of claim of the workmen for a closed unit which has already been declined by this court under its writ jurisdiction. Further the unit has been closed and the properties have also been sold by virtue of the order passed by the Company Court. In view thereof no positive direction can be issued in favour of the petitioners by this court sitting under Article 226 in such a disputed question of fact and moreover the similar relief as sought for in this writ petition has already been dealt with by this court in W.P.(C) No.14492 of 2006 as indicated herein above. Moreover when the same relief has already been declined to be interfered by this court no second writ petition can be maintainable and it will not be maintainable for the same set of cause of action. Since the petitioner has submitted that he may be given liberty to approach before the Industrial Dispute Act Tribunal, in my considered view the same has already been granted by this court in its order passed in W.P.(C) No.14492 of 2006, hence there is no requirement to give another liberty in this regard. In view thereof the writ petition is dismissed.