Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 26, Cited by 1]

Gujarat High Court

Prasad Mills Kamdar Samiti vs Bhupendra Bhagwatprasad Patel & 2 on 22 September, 2015

Author: Abhilasha Kumari

Bench: Abhilasha Kumari

               O/COMA/207/2014                                            CAV JUDGMENT




                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                          COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 207 of 2014
                           In COMPANY PETITION NO. 264 of 2008
                        In COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 427 of 2008

         FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


         HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI
         ===============================================================
         1    Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to
              see the judgment ?
         2    To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
         3    Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the
              judgment ?
         4    Whether this case involves a substantial question of
              law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India
              or any order made thereunder ?
         ================================================================
                    PRASAD MILLS KAMDAR SAMITI....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus
               BHUPENDRA BHAGWATPRASAD PATEL & 2....Respondent(s)
         ================================================================
         Appearance:
         MR ANSHIN H DESAI FOR MR SIRAJ R GORI, ADVOCATE for Applicant(s) No. 1
         MR SI NANAVATI, SENIOR ADVOCATE AND MR SN SOPARKAR, SENIOR
         ADVOCATE WITH MR AS VAKIL, ADVOCATE for Respondent No. 1 - 1.2 , 2
         MS AMEE YAJNIK, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 3
         MR ROSHAN DESAI, OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR for the Respondent(s) No. 3
         ================================================================
                  CORAM: HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA
                         KUMARI

                                     Date : 22/09/2015
                                     CAV JUDGMENT

1. The applicant herein has taken out these Judges  Summons,   seeking   the   permission   of   the   Court   to   be  joined   as   party­respondent   in   Company   Petition  Page 1 of 51 HC-NIC Page 1 of 51 Created On Thu Sep 24 01:08:47 IST 2015 O/COMA/207/2014 CAV JUDGMENT No.264/2008.   The   applicant   describes   itself   as  "Prakash   Mills   Kamdar   Samiti",   through   its   Convener  Shri Shamsuddin Shaikh.

2. In order to appreciate the background in which the   Judges   Summons   have   been   taken   out,   it   would   be   necessary   to   briefly   delineate   the   background   of   the   matter, gathered from the material on record. 

3. The Official Liquidator attached to this Court was   appointed   as   the   Liquidator   of   M/s.Prasad   Mills   Ltd.

 

(the company in liquidation, hereinafter referred to as   "the   Company")   and   the   properties   and   assets   of   the   Company came into his possession. In the year 1988, the   movable properties of the Company, namely, the stock of   goods,   plant   and   machinery   and   the   superstructure   of   the   building,   were   put   to   sale   by   the   Official   Liquidator. It is stated that, as per  the information   available   to   the   applicant,   the   movable   assets   were   sold and the land admeasuring about 36971.25 sq.mtrs.,   is   still   available   with   the   Official   Liquidator.

 

Opponents   Nos.1   and   2   have   come   out   with   a   proposed   Scheme   of   Compromise   between   the   secured   creditors,   statutory   creditors,   workmen   and   equity   shareholders.

 

It   is   the   case   of   the   applicant   that   during   the   Page 2 of 51 HC-NIC Page 2 of 51 Created On Thu Sep 24 01:08:47 IST 2015 O/COMA/207/2014 CAV JUDGMENT proceedings leading up to the proposed Scheme, the said   opponents,   in   collusion   with   the   Textile   Labour   Association   ("TLA",   for   short),   which   is   the   Representative   Union   under   the   Gujarat   Industrial   Relations Act, 1946 ("the GIR Act", for short) got the   meeting   dispensed   with,   by   filing   an   affidavit   dated   26.07.2008,   deposed   by   one   Shri   Jagjivan   Khimjibhai,   giving   consent   to   the   Scheme.   According   to   the   applicant,  the affidavit filed  by the TLA was without   the consent of the workers and had been filed with the   intention of prejudicing their interest. It is alleged   that   the   workers   have   not   been   taken   into   confidence   about the Scheme and the authorized person of the TLA   had   agreed   to   the   Scheme   proposed   by   the   said   opponents,   in   order   to   gain   undue   advantage   from   opponents Nos.1 and 2. It is the case of the applicant   that   the   compromise   arrived   at   between   the   TLA   and   opponents  Nos.1  and  2,  is   not   in  the  interest  of  the   workers, therefore, the  applicant, which is a separate   body, had to be formed in order to protect the interest   of   the   workmen.   For   this   reason,   the   applicant   is   desirous of being impleaded in the Company Petition.

4. Mr.Anshin   H.   Desai,   learned   advocate   for   the  Page 3 of 51 HC-NIC Page 3 of 51 Created On Thu Sep 24 01:08:47 IST 2015 O/COMA/207/2014 CAV JUDGMENT applicant has made elaborate submissions the gist of  which is as follows :

4.1 That   the   applicant   comprises   of   521   workers   of  the Company. The list of members has been annexed at  Annexures­A  and   I  to  the   affidavit.  It  is  submitted  that the present group of workmen is the majority of  the total number of 1430 workmen. The impleadment in  the Company Petition No.264/2008, which has been filed  for sanction of Scheme of Compromise proposed by the  present   opponents   Nos.1   and   2   (petitioners   therein)  with   the   creditors,   workmen   and   shareholders   of   the  Company,   under   the   provisions   of   Section­391   of   the  Companies Act, 1956 ("the Companies Act", for short),  becomes necessary as the TLA did not take the workmen  into   confidence   and   dispensed   with   the   meeting,  supporting   the   Scheme.  That,   the   effect   is   that   all  the   secured   creditors   have   been   paid,   though   the   substantial   dues   of   the   workmen,   who   have   first   priority as per Section­529A of the Companies Act, and   who   are   to   be   given   overriding   preferential   payment,   are still pending, having been left high and dry.
 
4.2 That   the   affidavit   in   support   of   the   Scheme,  deposed by Shri Jagjivan Khimjibhai on 26.07.2008, on  Page 4 of 51 HC-NIC Page 4 of 51 Created On Thu Sep 24 01:08:47 IST 2015 O/COMA/207/2014 CAV JUDGMENT behalf of the TLA does not take into consideration the  interest of the workers. The affidavit has been filed  against   the   interest   of   the   workers,   in   order   to  derive an undue advantage from opponents Nos.1 and 2,  with a  malafide  motive. It is submitted that it is,  therefore,   necessary   to   implead   the   applicant   to  protect the interest of the workmen and bring correct  facts to light.
4.3 That, the Scheme proposed by opponents Nos.1 and  2 is not for the revival of the Company but to get the  benefit of the steep rise in the market price of the  land of the Company, which cannot be permitted at the  cost   of   the   interest   of   the   workmen.   The   concerned  opponents have never shown any efforts to revive the  Company. Clause­5.9 of the Scheme contains a condition  that if the manufacturing of textiles is not viable by  the   Sponsor,   the   company   shall   diversify   into   such  other   business   activities   that   may   be   found   to   be  suitable, viable, permissible and in accordance with  law. As per clause­5.14, a condition has been imposed  in   the   Scheme   that   if   it   is   not   sanctioned   before  30.03.2009, the Scheme would stand revoked. That the  Page 5 of 51 HC-NIC Page 5 of 51 Created On Thu Sep 24 01:08:47 IST 2015 O/COMA/207/2014 CAV JUDGMENT said date has already elapsed and the Scheme has yet  not been sanctioned. In this view of the matter, it  would   be   in   the   interest   of   the   workmen   to   raise  objections   regarding   the   viability   of   the   Scheme,  which they can do only if impleaded.
 
4.4 That due to the steep rise in the price of the  land of the Company, it would be possible to satisfy  the   claims   of   all   the   workers   upon   its   sale.   There  would  be  a   balance   amount   available,   which   could   be  further distributed towards interest and other dues. 

This can only be done if proper representation of the  workmen   is   permitted.   For   this   reason,  as  well,  the  applicant   is   required   to   be   joined   as   party­  respondent in the Company Petition.

4.5 That,   by   an   order   dated   26.02.2014,   the   Deputy  Registrar   under   the   Trade   Union   Act,   1926,   has  cancelled the registration of the TLA. Though the said  registration   has   been   partially   restored   by   the  Industrial Tribunal  vide  its order dated 16.06.2014,  however, the restoration is conditional and the TLA is  prohibited from taking any policy decision without the  permission   of   the   Court.   Hence,   the   TLA   is   not  Page 6 of 51 HC-NIC Page 6 of 51 Created On Thu Sep 24 01:08:47 IST 2015 O/COMA/207/2014 CAV JUDGMENT competent to defend the interest of the workmen as it  cannot   take   a   policy   decision   in   their   favour.   For  this reason as well, the impleadment of the applicant  becomes necessary.

4.6 That,   the   opponents   cannot   object   to   the  impleadment of the applicant, as it is undisputed that  more   than   95%   of   the   workmen   have   received   only   a  meagre   amount   so   far.   Neither  the   TLA   nor  opponents  Nos.1   and   2   have  locus   standi  to   oppose   the  impleadment   of   the   applicant.   The   workmen   have   no  confidence in the TLA, which is not competent to take  a decision. Besides, no prejudice would be caused to  any   party   if   the   applicant   is   permitted   to   be  impleaded. 

4.7 The learned advocate for the applicant has relied  upon   a  judgment   of   this   Court   (Coram:   Hon'ble  Mr.Justice   K.M.Thaker)   dated   16.06.2012,   passed   in  Company   Petition   No.135/2005   and   connected   matters,  especially paragraphs 10.9 to 11, wherein this Court  has stated as below :

"10.9   Thus,   unless   it   is   established   in  appropriate   proceedings   before   competent   forum  that   the   closure   was   effected   after   following  Page 7 of 51 HC-NIC Page 7 of 51 Created On Thu Sep 24 01:08:47 IST 2015 O/COMA/207/2014 CAV JUDGMENT prescribed procedure and the services of workers  were determined in accordance with law and after   completing   all   formalities,   mere   assertion  without any supporting documents that the company  had no workers on its pay roll at the relevant  time ­ particularly after 1.1.1992 ­ would not be  of any assistance to the company in claiming and  in   satisfying   Court's   anxiety   that   there   is   no  claim   from,   or   liability   towards   claim   of,   workmen. 
It   is   one   thing   to   say   that   there   is   no   litigation pending from the side of workmen and  another thing to prove that there are no claim by  or   liability   towards   claim   of   workmen   and   /   or  that   the   workmen   do   not   have   any   claim   against  the company. 
10.10   In   ordinary   course   of   liquidation  proceedings the official liquidator would invite,  after   publishing   appropriate   advertisement,  claims from all workmen and such claims would be  verified in light of relevant provisions. However  in   present   case   the   petitioner   has,   without  placing   on   record   any   supporting   material,  claimed that there are no claims from workmen. On  the  other  hand  official  liquidator  has  asserted  that claim and dues in the sum of about Rs.2.54  crores are outstanding. 
10.11   Duty   is   cast   on   the   court   to   be   extra   cautious   as   regards   claim   of   workmen   and   it   is  Page 8 of 51 HC-NIC Page 8 of 51 Created On Thu Sep 24 01:08:47 IST 2015 O/COMA/207/2014 CAV JUDGMENT court's   duty   and   obligation   to   ensure   that   all  precautions  and  measures  are   taken  to  ascertain  as to whether there are any unpaid dues or claims  payable to the workmen, or not. The Court is the  guardian for the workmen and their interests and   claim,   in   the   winding   ­up   proceedings   and   /   or  proceedings connected  with winding  -   up  process  or arising therefrom. 
When   the   petitioners   claim   one   thing   and   the  official liquidator assets another - particularly  opposite and contrary to petitioner's claim, then  court   would   prefer,   in   absence   of   any   cogent  evidence   establishing   petitioner's   claim   to  accept and rely on liquidator's assertions.
10.12 If   there   are   such   claims   then   it   would  be permissible to the Court, rather an obligation   on   the   Court,   to   direct   the   company­applicant  to   make appropriate provision in the scheme and / or   to provide appropriate and sufficient measures in   the   order  and   to   prescribe  proper  and   sufficient   safeguards   to   protect  the   interest   and   claims  of   the   workmen   and   in   the   event   of   petitioner's   refusal   or   failure   to   comply,   to   decline   the   sanction and reject the scheme.
11. The company has attempted to claim that the  respondent   union   has   no   locus   to   represent   the  worker   since   its   recognition   was   cancelled   in  December 1992. A copy of order said to have been  passed   by   the   Registrar   is   placed   on   record.   A  Page 9 of 51 HC-NIC Page 9 of 51 Created On Thu Sep 24 01:08:47 IST 2015 O/COMA/207/2014 CAV JUDGMENT glance   at   the   said   order   clarifies   that   the  Registrar   has   only   cancelled   the   status   of   the  union   as   the   "representative   union"   under   the  provisions of B.I.R. Act. The registration of a  union   as   an   association   /   union   (under   Trade  Unions   Act,   1926)   is   a   different   matter   and  concept   from   the   conferment   of   status   of  "representative   union"   under   provisions   of   BIR  Act.   Cancellation   of   said   status   does   not  automatically result into cancellation of union's  registration as an association / union under the   provisions of Trade Unions Act. Besides this, it   is Court's authority, jurisdiction, privilege and  discretion   to   allow   relevant   and   necessary  material and details from other source and Court   may,   if   the   details   are   found   satisfactory   and  reliable, take it into consideration."

On   the   strength   of   the   above   submissions,  Mr.Anshin   H.   Desai,   learned   advocate   for   the  applicant,   has   fervently   urged   that   the   prayer   for  impleadment be granted.

5. Mr.S.I.Nanavati,   learned   Senior   Counsel   with  Mr.A.S.Vakil,   learned   advocate,   appearing   for  respondents   Nos.1,   1.1,   1.2   and   2,   has   strongly  opposed   the   submissions   advanced   on   behalf   of   the  applicant, by submitting that as per Section­14 of the  Page 10 of 51 HC-NIC Page 10 of 51 Created On Thu Sep 24 01:08:47 IST 2015 O/COMA/207/2014 CAV JUDGMENT Gujarat Industrial Relations Act, 1946 ("the GIR Act",  for   short),   there   can   only   be   one   Representative  Union.   The   procedure   for   declaring   the   union   as   a  Representative Union has been laid down in Sections­13  and 14 of the said Act. There is a difference between  a recognized union under the Industrial Disputes Act,  1947,  and   a  Representative  Union  under  the   GIR   Act.  The intent and object of enacting the GIR Act is that,  instead   of   individual   bargaining,   there   should   be  collective   bargaining;   therefore,   only   the  Representative   Union   is   authorized   to   represent   the  workmen   and   no   other   recognized   union   or   individual  can   do   so.   In   the   present   case,   as   the   TLA   is   the  Representative Union, all the workmen, including those  forming   the   applicant   Committee,   are   represented   by  the   TLA   which   has   already   given   its   consent   to   the  Scheme. As the TLA is the only Representative Union,  the applicant cannot claim to be the representative of  the   workmen.   In   fact,   the   applicant   has   no  locus  standi to file the application.

5.1 It   is   further   submitted   by   the   learned   Senior  Counsel   that,   it   is   not   clear   who,   or   what,   the  Page 11 of 51 HC-NIC Page 11 of 51 Created On Thu Sep 24 01:08:47 IST 2015 O/COMA/207/2014 CAV JUDGMENT applicant is and when it was formed or incorporated.  Neither is it clear under which law the applicant has  been formed. Under the   GIR Act, which is applicable  in the present case, the law does not permit any other  body except the Representative Union to represent the  workmen. 

5.2 It is pointed out that in the cause­title of the  application,   the   applicant   is   described   as   "Prasad  Mills   Kamdar   Samiti,   through   its   Convener   Shri  Shamsuddin Shaikh". However, in the cause­title of the  affidavit in support of the Judges Summons, at running  Page­4,   Shri   Shamsuddin   Shaikh   is   described   as   its  Secretary. Again, in the affidavit in support of the  Judges Summons, Shri Shamsuddin Shaikh is described as  its Convener. In the additional affidavit in support  of   the   Judges   Summons,   affirmed   on   09.03.2015,   the  deponent is Shamsuddin Shaikh, who describes himself  as a member of the new representative Committee of the  applicant.   In   the   third   affidavit,   affirmed   on  20.07.2015,   Shri   Shamsuddin   Shaikh   appears   to   have  deposed in his individual capacity. 

5.3 It   is   submitted   that   there   is   no   consistent  Page 12 of 51 HC-NIC Page 12 of 51 Created On Thu Sep 24 01:08:47 IST 2015 O/COMA/207/2014 CAV JUDGMENT description   of   the   proper   designation   of   Shri  Shamsuddin Shaikh, who sometimes describes himself as  a   Convener   of   the   Committee,   sometimes   as   the  Secretary of the Committee, sometimes as a member of  the new representative committee and sometimes deposes  an   affidavit   in   his   individual   capacity.   It   is  contended that no Vakalatnama has been filed on behalf  of 521 persons, who are supposed to be the members of  the applicant Committee. Only Shri Shamsuddin Shaikh  has signed the Vakalatnama in his individual capacity.  It   is   submitted   that   it   is   very   clear   that   the  applicant is not a registered or recognized body and  the   person   who   has   filed   the   Judges   Summons   and  affidavits on its behalf does not have any consistent  designation.   The   applicant,   therefore,   has   no  locus  standi  to   approach   this   Court   and   pray   for  impleadment, especially when the Representative Union  is already present.

5.4 Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that  by   the   order   dated   26.02.2014,   the   Deputy   Registrar  under  the   Trade   Unions   Act,   1926,   has   cancelled  the  registration of the TLA. However, this order has been  Page 13 of 51 HC-NIC Page 13 of 51 Created On Thu Sep 24 01:08:47 IST 2015 O/COMA/207/2014 CAV JUDGMENT stayed   by   the   Industrial   Tribunal,   vide   its   order  dated 16.06.2014. Though a condition has been imposed  that   the   TLA   shall   not   take   any   policy   decision  without   the   permission   of   the   Court,   however,   the  policy decision regarding the sanction of the proposed  Scheme has already been taken by the TLA, as far back  as on 26.07.2008, through its the­then office­bearer,  Shri   Jagjivan   Khimjibhai,   since   deceased.   It   is  contended that the orders of the Deputy Registrar and  the Industrial Tribunal cannot operate retrospectively  or have any effect on an action already taken. In any  event,   the   TLA,   is   still   functioning,   as   the  cancellation of its registration has been stayed. It  cannot, therefore, be claimed by the applicant that it  is the only body that can  represent the workmen.  5.5 In   support   of   the   submissions   that   only   the  Representative   Union   can   represent   the   workmen   and  take a binding decision on their behalf,  the learned  Senior Counsel has relied heavily upon the judgment of  the   Supreme   Court   in   the   case   of  Shivanand  Gaurishankar Baswanti Vs. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills  and others, reported in AIR 2009 SC 825.

Page 14 of 51 HC-NIC Page 14 of 51 Created On Thu Sep 24 01:08:47 IST 2015 O/COMA/207/2014 CAV JUDGMENT 5.6 The   relevant   extracts   of   the   said   judgment   are  reproduced below :  

"29.   Again,   who   has   approached   this   Court?  Neither a secured nor an unsecured creditor. Nor   a   representative   of   a   labour   union.   Nor   even   a  person   acting   pro   bono   publico   .   As   already  adverted   to   earlier,   PIL   Writ   Petition   at   the   instance   of   the   appellant   was   dismissed   by   the  High   Court   and   the   said   decision   was   never  challenged   by   him.   Here   is   an   employee   who   is   also one of the workers, who has been paid his  dues.   He   accepted   the   amount   of   Rs.62,555/­and  issued   'No   Objection   Certificate'   (No   Dues  Certificate) ­ no doubt by putting an endorsement   "Accepted under Protest". He has urged that the  workmen   have   not   been   paid   their   dues   and  injustice   had   been   done   to   them.   To   us,   even   there,   the   appellant   is   not   right.  A  Representative  Union  has  taken  a  decision  which  is   binding   on   all   employees.   That   aspect,  however, we will deal with at a later stage.
30. ***** STATUS AND POSITION OF REPRESENTATIVE UNION
31. The   learned   counsel   for   the   appellant   contended   that   respondent   No.   8   could   not   have  agreed to accept a meagre amount of Rs. 22 crores   when the outstanding dues were more than Rs. 130   crores.   It   was   also   stated   that   majority   of   workers   are   with   the   appellant   and   they   are   Page 15 of 51 HC-NIC Page 15 of 51 Created On Thu Sep 24 01:08:47 IST 2015 O/COMA/207/2014 CAV JUDGMENT opposed   to  the   settlement.   Thousands  of  workers   have   so   stated   in   writing   and   informed   the   appellant   that   the   grievance   raised   by   the  appellant  is  well­founded   and   they   are   entitled   to much more amount than what had been paid under   the settlement.
32.   Even   this   contention   has   no   force.   The    learned counsel for the Union, in our opinion, is  right   in   submitting   that   under   the   Bombay  Industrial   Relations   Act,   1946,   it   is   the  'Representative   Union'   which   has   all   powers   to  enter into a settlement on behalf of workers in   the industry and it is only that Union which can   take a decision under 1946 Act. The said decision  would bind not only the members of the Union, but   also to those workers who are not members of such   Union.
33. The   learned   counsel,   in   this   connection,  invited   our   attention   to   various   provisions   of  1946   Act.   As   the   Preamble   of   the   Act   declares,   the   Act   has   been   enacted   "to   regulate   the   relations   of   employers   and   employees,   to   make  provision   for   settlement   of   industrial   disputes  and to provide for certain other purposes". The  Act   contains   elaborate   provisions   for  registration of Unions and their powers.
34. Section 2 defines various terms. Chapter II  deals   with   Authorities   constituted   or   appointed  Page 16 of 51 HC-NIC Page 16 of 51 Created On Thu Sep 24 01:08:47 IST 2015 O/COMA/207/2014 CAV JUDGMENT under   the   Act.   Chapter   III   provides   for  registration   of   Unions.   Chapter   IV   relates   to  Approved   Unions.   Chapter   V   titles   "Representatives of Employers and Employees, and  appearance on their behalf.
35. Section   27   enables   the   State   Government   to   recognize   any   combination   of   employers   as  Association   of   Employers   in   an   industry   in   any  local   area   and   to   represent   an   employer   in   any   proceeding   under   the   Act.   Section   27A   correspondingly provides for appearance on behalf   of employees. It is, however, in negative terms  and enacts that save as provided in certain cases  (Sections   32   and   33),   "no   employee   shall   be  allowed to appear or act in any proceeding under   this   Act   except   through   the   representative   of  employees".  The section thus puts an embargo on  appearance   of   any   employee   except   through   the  representative of employees.
36. Section 14 empowers Registrar to register a  'Representative Union' for any 'Industry' in any  'Local Area'. *****
37.   It   is   thus   clear   that   Representative   Union    is   having   priority   and   'preference'   over   other  Unions to appear on behalf of employees of such   industry in the area. *****
38. The   aforesaid   provisions   came   up   for  consideration before this Court in Girja Shankar  Page 17 of 51 HC-NIC Page 17 of 51 Created On Thu Sep 24 01:08:47 IST 2015 O/COMA/207/2014 CAV JUDGMENT Kashi   Ram   v.   Gujarat   Spinning   and   Weaving   Co.  Ltd., (1962) Supp 2 SCR 890. In  that case, 'G'   closed its business and sold its assets to 'T'.   The old company discharged all its workmen when  it   closed   the   business.   The   new   company   re­ started the business and employed all the workmen  of   the   old   company.   At   the   time   of   closure   of   'G',   a   dispute   was   pending   between   the   company  and   its   workmen   with   respect   to   bonus.   A  'Representative Union' of the Textile Workers in  the city of Ahmedabad filed an application before  the Labour Appellate Tribunal wherein the dispute   was   pending   and   the   matter   was   sub­judice.   The  matter was compromised and 'G' consented to pay  agreed   bonus.   The   Representative   Union   accepted  the amount and gave an undertaking not to claim   compensation in future. Later on, however, about  400   employees   issued   a   notice   and   claimed  compensation   for   closure.   The   Representative  Union   appeared   before   the   Labour   Court   and  contended that the application was liable to be  dismissed   in   view   of   the   compromise   arrived   at  between   the   Mill   Company   and   Representative  Union. The Labour Court upheld the objection and  dismissed   the   application.   The   order   was   confirmed by Industrial Court in appeal as well  as by the High Court in a petition under Article  
227. The employees approached this Court.
39.   This Court considered the relevant provisions   of the 1946 Act, the object underlying conferment   Page 18 of 51 HC-NIC Page 18 of 51 Created On Thu Sep 24 01:08:47 IST 2015 O/COMA/207/2014 CAV JUDGMENT of   power   on   Representative   Union   and   the   action   taken   by   it   and   held   that   when   a   Representative   Union   appears   in   any   proceeding   under   the   Act,   none   else   can   be   allowed   to   appear   not   even   the   employee at whose instance proceedings might have   been  started under Section 42(4) of the Act. The   Court   held   that   if   the   Representative   Union   appears, the decision taken by that Union would be   final and binding.
40. Explaining the scheme of the Act, the Court   stated :
"It   will   be   seen   that   S.   27A   provides   that   no   employee shall be allowed to appear or act in any   proceeding   under   the   Act,   except   through   the  representative   of   employees,   the   only   exception  to this being the provisions of Sections 32 and  
33.  Therefore,   this   section  completely   bans   the   appearance  of an  employee or  of any one on his   behalf   in   any   proceeding   after   it   has   once   commenced   except   through   the   representative   of  employees.  The   only   exceptions  to  this   complete   ban   are   to   be   found   in   Sections   32   and   33;   to  which we shall presently refer.  But it is clear  that   bona   fides   or   mala   fides   of   the  representative   of   employees  can   have  nothing   to   do   with   the   ban   placed   by   Section   27A   on   the   appearance   of   any   one   else   except   the  representative of employees as defined in Section   30   and   that   if   anyone   else   can   appear   in   any   proceeding   we   must   find   a   provisions   in   that   Page 19 of 51 HC-NIC Page 19 of 51 Created On Thu Sep 24 01:08:47 IST 2015 O/COMA/207/2014 CAV JUDGMENT behalf in either Section 32 or Section 33 which   are the only exception to Section 27A. It may be  noticed that there is no exception in Section 27A  in favour of the employee, who might have made an  application under Section 42(4), to appear on his  own behalf and the ban which is placed by Section   27A   will   apply   equally   to   such   an   employee.  In  order   however   to   soften   the   rigour   of   the   provisions   of   Section   27A,   for   it   may   well   be  that   the   representative   of   employees   may   not  choose to appear in many proceedings started by  an   employee   under   S.   42(4),   exceptions   are  provided in Ss. 32 and  33. The scheme of  these   three   provisions   clearly   is   that   if   the  Representative   Union   appears,   no   one   else   can  appear and carry on a proceeding, even if it be   begun on an application under S. 42 (4) but where   the   Representative   Union   does   not   choose   to  appear   there   are   provisions   in   Ss.   32   and   33  which   permit   others   to   appear   in   proceedings  under the Act. *****
41.   The Court also held that bona fides or mala    fides of the representative Union has nothing to  do with the complete ban imposed by the Act  on   the   appearance   of   any   one   else   except   the   representative   of   employees  under  Section   30   of   the Act.
42.   It was argued that if such interpretation is    accepted,   there   would   be   tyranny   of   the  Page 20 of 51 HC-NIC Page 20 of 51 Created On Thu Sep 24 01:08:47 IST 2015 O/COMA/207/2014 CAV JUDGMENT Representative   Union.   This   Court,   however,  negatived   even   that   argument   and   observed   that  the so­called tyranny or motive of Representative   Union cannot change the legal position and it has  no relevance if the intention of the Legislature  is clear and unambiguous.
43. *****
44. Again,   in   Textile   Labour   Association,  Bhadra,   Ahmedabad   v.   Ahmedabad   Mill   Owners  Association,   Ahmedabad,   (1970)   3   SCC   890,   this  Court   held   that  once   Representative   Union   of  Textile Industry in the local area of Ahmedabad  entered into a compromise, such compromise would  bind   all   the   employees   and   those   employees   who  are   not   members   of   the   Representative   Union  cannot   contend   that   they   are   against   such  compromise and are not bound by it.
45. In Santuram Khudai v. Kimatrai Printers and  Processors Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., (1978) 1 SCC 162,   a   similar   question   arose.   The   Court   reiterated  the law laid down in Girja Shankar and held that   once the Representative nion appears on behalf of  the   employees   in   a   proceeding   before   a   Labour  Court under 1946 Act, individual workman has no  locus   standi.   According   to   the   Court,   combined  reading of Sections 27A303233 and 80 of the   Act make it clear that consistent with the avowed  policy and prevention of exploitation of workmen  Page 21 of 51 HC-NIC Page 21 of 51 Created On Thu Sep 24 01:08:47 IST 2015 O/COMA/207/2014 CAV JUDGMENT and  augmentation   of  their   bargaining  power,  the  Legislature has clothed the Representative Union  with plenary power to appear or act on behalf of   employees   in   any   proceeding   under   the   Act.  Keeping in view the said object, it has deprived   individual employees or workmen of the right to  appear   or   act   in   any   proceeding   under   the   Act  where the Representative Union enters appearance  or acts as representative of the employees.
46.   Following Girja Shankar, the Court observed    that   mala   fides   or   bona   fides   of   the  Representative   Union   has   no   relevance   in  construing the relevant provisions of the Act. In  case  the  employees  find  that  the  Representative  Union is acting in a manner which is prejudicial  to their interests, their remedy lies in invoking   the aid of the Registrar under Chapter III of the  Act requesting him to cancel the registration of   the union."                        

                             (emphasis supplied) 5.7 The learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the  Supreme Court has held in the above judgment that the  malafide or bonafide of the representative union have  no relevance in construing the relevant provisions of  the   Act.   In   the   present   case,   the   applicant   has  alleged  malafides  against   the   TLA   and   the   deceased  member/office­bearer   who   has   filed   the   affidavit  Page 22 of 51 HC-NIC Page 22 of 51 Created On Thu Sep 24 01:08:47 IST 2015 O/COMA/207/2014 CAV JUDGMENT consenting   to   the   Scheme   on   26.07.2008.   The  allegations   of  malafides  by   the   deceased   Jagjivan  Khimjibhai,   who   expired   in   November,   2013,   have   not  been made good by the applicant. The said allegations,  therefore, cannot stand in face of the clear dictum of  the Supreme Court. 

5.8 In   addition   thereto,   the   learned   Senior   Counsel  has relied upon the judgment dated 27.02.2013, passed  by a Division Bench of this Court (Coram: Hon'ble Mr.  Justice   Ravi   R.   Tripathi   and   Hon'ble   Mr.Justice  R.D.Kothari)   in   Civil   Application   No.11829/2010   in  Letters   Patent   Appeal   No.110/2009   and   connected  matters, wherein it is held as below :

"4. Be that as it may, the question which falls  for consideration of this Court is whether under   Bombay Industrial Relations Act, any employee, an  individual   workman   or   group   of   workmen   or   for  that reason any other Union, is having any locus  standi to prosecute the proceedings.
5.   Learned   Senior   Advocate   Mr.S.I.Nanavati  appearing for the respondent mill company invited  attention   of   the   Court   to   a   decision   of   the  Honble the Apex Court in the matter of  Santuram   Khudai Vs. Kimatrai Printers and Processors Pvt.   Ltd.   &   Ors.,   reported   in  (1978)   1   SCC   162. 
Page 23 of 51
HC-NIC Page 23 of 51 Created On Thu Sep 24 01:08:47 IST 2015 O/COMA/207/2014 CAV JUDGMENT Learned   Senior   Advocate   for   the   mill   company  invited attention of the Court to para­12 of the  said decision. The same is reproduced for ready  perusal:­ Now a combined reading of sections 80, 27­A,   30, 32 and 33 of the Act leaves no room for   doubt   that   consistent   with   its   avowed   policy   of   preventing   the   exploitation   of   the workers and augmenting their bargaining   power,   the   Legislature   has   clothed   the   representative   union   with  plenary   power   to   appear or act on behalf of the employees in   any   proceedings   under   the   Act,and   has   deprived   the   individual   employees   or   workmen   of   the   right   to   appear   or   act   in   any   proceeding   under   the   Act   where   the   representative   union   enters   appearance   or  acts as representative of employees. We are  fortified in this view by a decision of this   Court   in   Girja   Shankar   Kashi   Ram   v.   The  Gujarat Spinning & Weaving Co. Ltd.(1) where   Wanchoo,   J.   (as   he   then   was)   speaking   for  the Court observed as follows:
"It will be seen that s. 27­A provides that  no   employee   shall   be   allowed   to   appear   or  act in any proceeding under the Act, except  through the representative of employees, the   only exception to this being the provisions  Page 24 of 51 HC-NIC Page 24 of 51 Created On Thu Sep 24 01:08:47 IST 2015 O/COMA/207/2014 CAV JUDGMENT of   ss.   32   and   33.   Therefore,   this   section  completely   bans   the   appearance   of   an  employee or of any one on his behalf in any   proceeding   after   it   has   once   commenced  except   through   the   representative   of  employees.   The   only   exceptions   to   this  complete ban are to be found in sections 32  and 33.
(emphasis supplied) 5.1   The   aforesaid   decision   lays   down   in   no  uncertain terms that the present applicants will  have   no   right   whatsoever   to   prosecute   the  proceedings in which they want to get themselves   impleaded  as  party.  Learned  Senior  Advocate   for  the   mill   company   submitted   that   the   law   has  remained   the   same   till   date   and   there   is   no  change in the said position of law.
5.2 ***** 5.3 ***** 5.4 *****  5.5 Learned Senior Advocate for the mill company   submitted that this observation is required to be   appreciated in light of the observations made by   the   Honble   the   Apex   Court   in   the   matter   of  Santuram   Khudai   (supra)   in   para­17,   where   the  Honble the Apex Court in no uncertain terms has  observed that:­ It   has   to   be   remembered   that   malafides   or  bonafides   of   a   representative   union   has   no   Page 25 of 51 HC-NIC Page 25 of 51 Created On Thu Sep 24 01:08:47 IST 2015 O/COMA/207/2014 CAV JUDGMENT relevance   while   considering   the   provisions  of   section   27­A   and   sections   32   and   33   of  the   Act   which   taken   together   impose   an  absolute   ban   on   the   appearance   of   any  individual employee in any proceeding under  the   Act   where   the   representative   union  chooses   to   appear   act   as   representative   of   the employees  5.6 Learned Senior Advocate for the mill company   submitted that only to satisfy the conscience of   the   Court,   more   particularly   when   the   Court   is  examining   the   matter   under   its   discretionary  powers must be satisfied on the point that there  is no injustice meted out to the workers who have  come to this Court, it will be appropriate to put  it on record that the mill company had more than  2500 workers, of which almost 2500 workers have  taken   benefit   under   the   settlement   arrived   at  between   the   Representative   Union   and   the   mill  company. Earlier, the present applicants were in  a group of about 800 workers, but later on, many  of   them   having   found   that   the   settlement   is   in  the   interest   of   the   workers,   have   taken   the  benefits   following   the   terms   and   conditions   of  settlement and as on date, only 150 workers are  left   who   have   not   agreed   to   take   the   benefit   under the settlement.
5.7. ***** Page 26 of 51 HC-NIC Page 26 of 51 Created On Thu Sep 24 01:08:47 IST 2015 O/COMA/207/2014 CAV JUDGMENT 5.8 *****
6.   The   Court   has   no   hesitation   in   holding   that  the   issue   is   well   covered   by   the   aforesaid  decisions   of   the   Honble   the   Apex   Court   and   the  present   applicants   have   no   locus   standi   and  therefore, the present application seeking leave  to   appeal   cannot   be   allowed.   The   same   is  accordingly   rejected.   Rule   is   discharged.   No   costs." 

5.9   The   learned   Senior   Counsel   has   further   placed   reliance   upon   an  order   dated   30.09.2014,   passed   by  this Court (Coram:Hon'ble Mr.Justice Paresh Upadhyay),   in Special Civil Application No.11550/2014 . 

5.10    It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel  that   the   TLA   gave   its   consent   to   the   Scheme   on  26.07.2008,   by   filing   an   affidavit.   The   present  application has been taken out on 30.07.2014. In the  affidavit in support of the Judges Summons, there is  no mention of the delay or the reasons why such delay  is   required   to   be   condoned.   No   explanation,  whatsoever, emerges to explain the delay. The Scheme  was advertised as per Section­391 of the Companies Act  on 14.10.2008. Nobody has come forward to object. The  applicant has not uttered even a single word, though  Page 27 of 51 HC-NIC Page 27 of 51 Created On Thu Sep 24 01:08:47 IST 2015 O/COMA/207/2014 CAV JUDGMENT it is deemed to have full knowledge. The prayer of the  applicant   to   join   it   as   party­respondent   does   not  deserve to be granted, as it is not the Representative  Union and cannot take the place of the TLA, which is  capable of protecting the interest of the workmen. To  grant   the   prayer   of   the   applicant   would   be   in  violation of the provisions of the GIR Act. That, the  Company   Court,   acting   under   Section­391   of   the  Companies Act would not require the assistance of the  applicant, as it has the power to sanction the Scheme,  with or without, modifications. The implementation of  the Scheme can be modified by the Company Court, if it  considers it proper. In this view of the matter, the  prayer of the applicant for joining is not justified.  5.11  It is further contended that it is not factually  correct   that   the   registration   of   the   TLA   as   a  Representative Union stands cancelled, in view of the  stay   order   granted   by   the   Industrial   Tribunal.  However,   even   if   that   had   been   the   position,   the  applicant   would   have   had   no   right   to   represent   the  workmen, in the absence of it being a Representative  Union. When the TLA sanctioned the Scheme in the year  2008,   its   recognition   as   a   Representative   Union   was  Page 28 of 51 HC-NIC Page 28 of 51 Created On Thu Sep 24 01:08:47 IST 2015 O/COMA/207/2014 CAV JUDGMENT intact.   Such   recognition   is   valid   and   cannot   be  assumed   to   be   cancelled   with   retrospective   effect.  Even   otherwise,   Section­18   of   the   GIR   Act,   which  operates  as  a   saving  section,  would  not   relieve  the  Representative Union of any liability incurred by it  before the cancellation of its registration. From all  angles,   therefore,   the   prayer   of   the   applicant   for  joining is misconceived.

5.12   Referring to Section­529A of the Companies Act,  it is submitted that this section comes into play when  the Company Court is considering the consequences of  winding up and distribution of the sale proceeds. In  the   present   case,   the   Company   Petition   is   for   the  revival of the Scheme, therefore, this section has no  relevance.

5.13     That,   though   it   is   true   that   the   secured  creditors   have   been   fully   paid   up,   however,   such  payment has not been made from the Company's assets.  They have been paid by the Sponsor, that is, opponent  No.2   herein.   The   reliance   of   the   applicant   on   the  provisions   of   Section­529A   of   the   Companies   Act   is,  therefore, misplaced.

Page 29 of 51 HC-NIC Page 29 of 51 Created On Thu Sep 24 01:08:47 IST 2015 O/COMA/207/2014 CAV JUDGMENT 5.14  Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that  the Sponsors are in oral understanding and discussion  with the TLA to pay more dues to the workmen, owing to  the depreciation of the value of the rupee. However,  any final figure cannot be stated as of now, as it is  not clear when the Scheme would be sanctioned.  5.15   Distinguishing   the   judgment   dated   16.06.2012,  passed in Company Petition No.135/2005 and connected  matters, relied upon by the learned advocate for the  applicant,   it   is   submitted   by   the   learned   Senior  Counsel   that,   in   that   case   the   question   before   the  Court was if the registration is cancelled under the  GIR Act, whether the representative union would lose  its   status   or   still   continue   as   a  recognized  union.  Paragraph­11   of   the   judgment   does   not   assist   the  contention   raised   by   the   applicant.   The   case   before  the   Court   was   factually   different   from   the   present  application.   In   the   present   case,   as   there   is   a  Representative   Union,   only   that   union   would   be  entitled   to   plead   the   case   of   the   workmen   and   none  else,  not   even  a   recognized   union,   which   status  the  applicant does not have.

Page 30 of 51 HC-NIC Page 30 of 51 Created On Thu Sep 24 01:08:47 IST 2015 O/COMA/207/2014 CAV JUDGMENT

6. Mr.S.N.Soparkar,   learned   Senior   Advocate   with  Mr.A.S.Vakil, learned advocate for respondents Nos.1,  1.1,   1.2   and   2   has   made   additional   submissions   by  referring to Rule­34 of the Companies (Court) Rules,  1959   ("the   Rules",   for   short),   which   provides   for  notice to be given by a person intending to appear at  the   hearing   of   the   petition   and   prescribes   a   time  limit for opposing the petition. It is submitted that  the applicant has not filed any objections within the  stipulated   period   of   time,   therefore,   it   cannot  appear,   except   with   the   leave   of   the   Court.   In   any  case,   there   is   no   respondent   to   a   petition   of   this  nature.   As   per   procedure,   the   objections   are   to   be  filed   within   the   stipulated   period   of   time   and   the  objector to be heard. The prayer for impleadment is,  therefore, misconceived. At the best, the only relief  that   can   be   sought   as   per   Rule­34   is   for   leave.  However, for this relief as well, a reasonable cause  has to be shown, with cogent reasons. In the present  case, the applicant has failed to show any reasonable  cause and no plausible reasons have been given in the  application   for   approaching   the   Court   so   belatedly  with a prayer for impleadment. Merely by stating that  Page 31 of 51 HC-NIC Page 31 of 51 Created On Thu Sep 24 01:08:47 IST 2015 O/COMA/207/2014 CAV JUDGMENT the   applicant   has   no   trust   in   the   TLA   cannot   be  considered to be a good reason for impleadment. In the  absence of any reasonable cause or cogent reasons, the  application of the applicant deserves to be rejected.

7. Mr.Roshan Desai, learned counsel for the Official  Liquidator,   has   submitted   that   whether   to   join   a  party­respondent   to   the   petition,   or   not,   is   the  prerogative of the Court. It is submitted that while  winding   up   the   Company,   the   TLA,   which   is   the  Representative Union, has submitted the claims of all  the   workers,   including   those   of   the   applicant.   The  said   claims   were   got   verified   by   the   Official  Liquidator   through   a   Chartered   Accountant.   Certain  plants   and   machinery   were   sold.   As   per   the   ratio  worked   out   by   the   Chartered   Accountant,   the   workmen  were   paid.   Thereafter,   no   amount   has   been   paid   to  anybody, including the secured creditors. The Sponsor  has paid the secured creditors from its own pocket and  it   cannot   be   said   that   the   Official   Liquidator   has  made any such payment.

8. In   rejoinder,   Mr.Anshin   H.   Desai,   learned  advocate   for   the   applicant   has   attempted   to  Page 32 of 51 HC-NIC Page 32 of 51 Created On Thu Sep 24 01:08:47 IST 2015 O/COMA/207/2014 CAV JUDGMENT distinguish   the   judgment   of   the   Supreme   Court   in  Shivanand   Gaurishankar   Baswanti   Vs.   Laxmi   Vishnu  Textile Mills and others (Supra.), by submitting that  the said judgment was rendered on the facts of that  case. He submits that in the case before the Supreme  Court, everything was over when the Court was moved as  the Scheme had been sanctioned, whereas the present is  a   case   where   there   is   no   question   of   delay,   as   the  Consortium   which   is   objecting   to   the   impleadment   of  the applicant has no  locus standi. The Scheme is not  yet sanctioned. In any case, the Scheme has outlived  his life. The TLA has joined hands with the Sponsor of  the Scheme, therefore, in the interest of the workmen,  it would be necessary to join the applicant.

9. Learned advocate for the applicant has reiterated  the submissions advanced earlier and has relied upon  certain additional judgments, as below :

9.1 Forbes & Company Ltd. Vs. Official Liquidator of  Bombay High Court, reported in (2013) 38 taxmann.com  299   (Bombay),   wherein   the   High   Court   of   Bombay   had  held as below :
"22. The judgment of the Supreme Court in  Meghal  Page 33 of 51 HC-NIC Page 33 of 51 Created On Thu Sep 24 01:08:47 IST 2015 O/COMA/207/2014 CAV JUDGMENT Homes   (supra)  is   sought   to   be   distinguished   by  learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the   Appellant on the ground that in that case, there  was  a  private  arrangement   between  the   promoters  and   developer   under   which   the   assets   of   the  company in liquidation were sought to be sold to  the developer whereas in the present case, there   would be no transfer of the assets of the company  and   the   assets   would   be   used   to   carry   on   real  estate   business.   We   are   unable   to   subscribe   to  the   submission.   In   the   present   case,   what   has  happened   is   that   after   the   order   of   winding   up  was   passed,   there   has   been   a   transfer   of   the   shares of the erstwhile company in liquidation as   well as an assignment of debts in favour of the  Second Applicant. But quite part from this, it is  impermissible  for  this  court   to  distinguish   the  judgment of the Supreme Court when as a matter of  fact   the   principle   which   has   been   laid   by   the   Supreme Court would apply to this case. First and  foremost,   the   judgment   of   the   Supreme   Court  clearly   holds   that   the   earlier   decision   of   a  Division Bench of this Court dated 4 April 1985  which   had   placed   a   considerable   degree   of  importance   on   the   reopening   and   the   revival   of  the  textile  mill  reflected  the  correct  position  of law. Secondly, the subsequent judgment of the   Division Bench of this Court which had sought to  distinguish the revival of the business activity  from the revival of the corporate existence has  been  disapproved   by  the  Supreme  Court.  Thirdly,  Page 34 of 51 HC-NIC Page 34 of 51 Created On Thu Sep 24 01:08:47 IST 2015 O/COMA/207/2014 CAV JUDGMENT as   the   observations   of   the   Supreme   Court   would  make   it   clear,   it   is   the   bounden   duty   of   the  company   court   while   exercising   its   discretion  under Section 466 to determine as to whether the  exercise of discretion has been invoked bonafide  and to ensure that what is put forward is not a  ruse to dispose of the assets of the company in  liquidation. It is with that perspective that the   Court must have due regard to matters of public  interest,   commercial   morality   and   to   whether  there exists a bonafide intention to revive the  business of the company.
23. Applying the test which has been enunciated  by the Supreme Court in Meghal Homes (supra), we  are   of   the   view   that   the   exercise   of   the  discretion   by   the   learned   Single   Judge   was   correct and proper. The object and purpose of the  Company application is not to revive the business   of the Company. The whole purpose is to dispose  of   the   assets   by   embarking   upon   real   estate  construction   and   development.   The   company  application  before  the  learned  Single  Judge   has  proceeded on the basis that what the Appellants  would   do   is   to   diversify   the   business   of   the   company into real estate by amending the objects   clause   of   the   Memorandum   of   Association   of   the  company. Admittedly, the company had not carried  on any real estate business in the past. Though a  faint attempt was made during the course of the  hearing, relying upon Clauses 4, 12, 16 and 26 of  Page 35 of 51 HC-NIC Page 35 of 51 Created On Thu Sep 24 01:08:47 IST 2015 O/COMA/207/2014 CAV JUDGMENT the   Memorandum   of   Association   to   show   that   the  objects   clause   permitted   carrying   on   of   real  estate business, it is evident from the averments   in   the   company   application   that   the   Appellants  themselves   proceeded   on   the   basis   that   an  amendment   of   the   objects   would   be   required   in  order   to   enable   the   company   to   enter   upon   real  estate   construction.   Whether   such   an   amendment  would or would not be granted is something which  may   depend   upon   the   decision   of   the   competent  authority   in   future   but   it   is   evident   that  presently,   the   carrying   on   of   real   estate  construction would be ultra­vires the objects of  the   company.   Besides,   under   Section   17   of   the   Companies Act, 1956, an amendment of the objects   requires   a   special   resolution   which   in   view   of  the   provision   of   Section   189   requires   3/4th  majority   of   members   present   and   voting.   No   circumstances  have  been  placed  before  the  Court  to indicate as to whether the Appellants have the  support of the requisite majority for a special  resolution under Section 189.
24. *****
25. *****
26. *****
27. *****
28. Before we conclude, we may note that RMSS a  registered   union   of   the   objecting   workers   has  sought   to   allege   that   RMMS   as   a   representative  union is alone entitled to represent the textile  mill   workers.   We   make   it   clear   that   for   the  Page 36 of 51 HC-NIC Page 36 of 51 Created On Thu Sep 24 01:08:47 IST 2015 O/COMA/207/2014 CAV JUDGMENT purposes   of   these   proceedings,   the   legality   and  the validity of the MOU which was entered into by  RMSS   with   the   Appellants   has   not   been   been   an  issue   which   falls   for   consideration.   Insofar   as  the   locus   of   the   workmen   represented   by  Mr.Singhvi   is   concerned,   we   have   no   doubt   in  coming   to   the   conclusion   that   they   have   a  substantial   standing   in   these   proceedings.   When  the   court   has   to   consider   whether   a   permanent  stay should be granted in regard to the order of  winding up, every creditor, and workmen in this  case being preferential creditors, is entitled to  be heard."

9.2 Another   judgment   relied   upon   by   the   learned  advocate   for   the   applicant   is   that   of   the   Supreme  Court in  Textile  Labour  Association  and  another  Vs.  Official Liquidator and another, reported in (2004) 9  SCC 741, wherein the Supreme Court has held as below: 

"8. The effect of Sections 529 and 529­A is that   the   workmen   of   the   company   become   secured  creditors   by   operation   of   law   to   the   extent   of  the workmen's dues provided there exists secured  creditor   by   contract.   If   there   is   no   secured  creditor then the workmen of the company become  unsecured   preferential   creditors   under   Section  529­A   to   the   extent   of   the   workmen   dues.   The   purpose   of   Section   529­A   is   to   ensure   that   the  workmen   should   not   be   deprived   of   their   Page 37 of 51 HC-NIC Page 37 of 51 Created On Thu Sep 24 01:08:47 IST 2015 O/COMA/207/2014 CAV JUDGMENT legitimate claims in the event of the liquidation   of   the   company   and   the   assets   of   the   company   would   remain   charged   for   the   payment   of   the  workers' dues and such charge will be pari passu  with the charge of the secured creditors. There  is   no   other   statutory   provision   overriding   the  claim   of   the   secured   creditors   except   Section  529­A. This Section overrides preferential claims  under Section 530 also. Under Section 529­A the  dues of the workers and debts due to the secured  creditors are to be treated pari passu and have  to be treated as prior to all other dues."

9.3 The   learned   advocate   for   the   applicant   has  further relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court  in  Jitendra   Nath   Singh   Vs.   Official   Liquidator   and  others,  reported   in  (2013)   1   SCC   462,   wherein   the  Supreme Court has held as below : 

"The first limb of the proviso to Section 529(1)  of   the   Companies   Act   creates   a   statutory   charge  over the security of every secured creditor to the  extent of the workmen's portion. In other words,  every property of asset of an insolvent company,  which is being wound up and which has been offered  as   a   security   to   a   secured   creditor   is   subject  statutorily   to   a   pari   passu   charge   in   favour   of  the   workmen   to   the   extent   of   the   workmen's  portion by virtue of the proviso to Section 529(1)  of the Companies Act. Therefore, the first limb of  Page 38 of 51 HC-NIC Page 38 of 51 Created On Thu Sep 24 01:08:47 IST 2015 O/COMA/207/2014 CAV JUDGMENT the proviso to Section 529(1) does not create any  pari   passu   charge   in   favour   of   secured   creditor  over   property   or   asset   of  the   company   which   has  not been given as security by the company to the  secured   creditor.   Rather,   the   language   of   the  first limb of this proviso makes it crystal clear  that   the   security   of   every   secured   creditor  created   dehors   the   proviso   to   Section   529(1)   of  the   Companies   Act   is   statutorily   subjected   to   a  pari passu charge in favour of the workmen by the  first limb of the proviso to Section 529(1) of the  Companies Act.                                    
                                      (Para 12)"

9.4 Yet   another   judgment   relied   upon   by   the   learned   advocate for the applicant is  Bank of New York Mellon  Vs. JCT Ltd., reported in (2015) 190 Comp Cas 396 (P &  H).

9.5 On   the   basis   of   the   above   judgments,   it   is  reiterated by Mr.Anshin H. Desai that if the applicant  is not impleaded there would be nobody to point out  the correct facts to the Court during the hearing of  the   Company   Petition;   therefore,   being   a   proper   and  necessary party comprising of the majority of workmen,  the application may be allowed.

10. This   Court   has   heard   learned   counsel   for   the  Page 39 of 51 HC-NIC Page 39 of 51 Created On Thu Sep 24 01:08:47 IST 2015 O/COMA/207/2014 CAV JUDGMENT respective   parties   at   length   and   thoughtfully  considered the submissions advanced at the Bar as well  as   the   judicial   pronouncements   relied   upon   by   the  learned counsel for the respective parties.

11. The applicant claims to be a Committee comprising  of   521   workmen   of   the   Company.   What   exactly   is   the  official status of the applicant Committee, does not  clearly   emerge   from   either   the   cause­title   of   the  application,   the   affidavit   filed   in   support   of   the  Judges   Summons   and   the   two   additional   affidavits,  affirmed   on   09.03.2015   and   20.07.2015.   In   none   of  these   affidavits,   has   it   been   disclosed   whether   the  applicant   is   an   unofficial   body   of   workmen   or   is   a  registered body of any kind. It is not disputed that  the Company was governed by the GIR Act. In Section­13  of   the   GIR   Act,   a   procedure   is   laid   down   for   the  registration of a union which has a membership of not  less   than   25%   of   the   total   number   of   employees  employed   in   any   industry   in   any   local   area   or   as   a  Representative Union for such industry in such local  area. Section­14 is regarding the registration of the  Representative   Union   after   following   the   procedure  Page 40 of 51 HC-NIC Page 40 of 51 Created On Thu Sep 24 01:08:47 IST 2015 O/COMA/207/2014 CAV JUDGMENT envisaged therein. It is not disputed by the applicant  that   the   TLA   is   the   Representative   Union   under  Section­14 of the GIR Act. What is being canvassed by  the applicant is that the registration of the TLA has  been cancelled by an order dated 26.02.2014, passed by  the Deputy Registrar under the Trade Unions Act, 1926.  Though   the   order   of   cancellation  has   been  stayed   by  the   Industrial   Tribunal  vide  its   order   dated  16.06.2014, it is the case of the applicant that the  said stay order imposes certain conditions, such as,  the   TLA   cannot   take   a   policy   decision   without   the  permission of the Court. This is one of the grounds on  which the applicant states that it ought to be joined  as party­respondent to the Company Petition.

12. Another ground taken by the applicant is the loss  of faith and confidence in the TLA which, according to  it,   has   not   taken   the   majority   of   the   workmen   into  confidence and has, in collusion with the Sponsor of  the Scheme, given its sanction to the Scheme  vide  an  affidavit dated 26.07.2008, deposed by Shri Jagjivan  Khimjibhai,   one   of   the   office­bearers   of   the   TLA.  According   to   the   applicant,   while   doing   so,   the  Representative Union has not taken the interest of the  Page 41 of 51 HC-NIC Page 41 of 51 Created On Thu Sep 24 01:08:47 IST 2015 O/COMA/207/2014 CAV JUDGMENT workmen into consideration. It is further alleged that  the   TLA   is   committing   violation   of   its  bye­laws  and  indulging   in   illegal   activities,   therefore,   the  majority of the workmen, who are the members of the  applicant Committee, have lost faith in it. 

13. It has been submitted on behalf of the applicant  that it is the only body of majority workmen which can  effectively assist the Court by bringing out correct  facts and pointing out the proper position, so as to  protect the interest of the workmen, which is supreme  and   paramount.   It   is   alleged   that   the   workmen   have  been   paid   only   a   meagre   amount,   though   the   secured  creditors have been fully paid. The main ground raised  for impleadment is that the presence of the applicant  is   necessary   to   ensure   that   the   interest   of   the  workmen does not suffer.       

14. The learned advocate for the applicant has placed  reliance upon a judgment of the High Court of Bombay  in  Forbes & Company Ltd. Vs. Official Liquidator of  Bombay   High   Court   (Supra.),  which   is   a   judgment  regarding the winding up of a company. In the view of  Page 42 of 51 HC-NIC Page 42 of 51 Created On Thu Sep 24 01:08:47 IST 2015 O/COMA/207/2014 CAV JUDGMENT this Court, this judgment would not be relevant in the  factual and legal scenario of the present application.

15. Another   judgment   relied   upon   by   the   learned  advocate   for   the   applicant   is   that   of   the   Supreme  Court in  Textile  Labour  Association  and  another  Vs.  Official   Liquidator   and   another   (Supra.).  This  judgment   is   regarding   Sections­529A   and   529   of   the  Companies Act. The above provisions of law would come  into play only at the time of the distribution of the  assets of the company, which is not the case in the  present   application.   This   judgment,   therefore,   would  not assist the applicant.

16. The judgment in Jitendra Nath Singh Vs. Official  Liquidator   and   others   (Supra.),  is   also   regarding  Sections­529A   and   529   of   the   Companies   Act.   In   the  view of this Court, it would not be applicable to the  present case which is an application for impleadment  as a party­respondent.

17. The   judgment   of   the   High   Court   of   Punjab   and  Haryana   relied  upon   by   the  learned   advocate   for  the  applicant,   namely,  Bank   of   New   York   Mellon   Vs.   JCT  Ltd. (Supra.),  is also regarding the winding up of a  Page 43 of 51 HC-NIC Page 43 of 51 Created On Thu Sep 24 01:08:47 IST 2015 O/COMA/207/2014 CAV JUDGMENT company. For the same reasons as above, it would not  be helpful to the applicant.

18. The   law   regarding   the   binding   nature   of   a  decision   taken   by   the   Representative   Union   has   now  been   settled   by   the   Supreme   Court   in  Shivanand  Gaurishankar Baswanti Vs. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills  and   others   (Supra.).  The   Apex   Court   has   laid   down  certain   principles   that   squarely   cover   the   issue   in  hand.   The   relevant   paragraphs   of   the   said   judgment  have   already   been   reproduced   hereinabove.     This  judgment   has   been   rendered   after   taking   into  consideration various other judgments of the Supreme  Court. The law with regard to a Representative Union  is   now   settled   and   has   been   clearly   stated   by   the  Supreme Court, as below :

"32. Even   this   contention   has   no   force.   The  learned   counsel   for   the   Union,   in   our   opinion,  is   right   in   submitting   that   under   the   Bombay  Industrial   Relations   Act,   1946,   it   is   the  'Representative   Union'   which   has   all   powers   to  enter into a settlement on behalf of workers in  the industry and it is only that Union which can  take   a   decision   under   1946   Act.   The   said  Page 44 of 51 HC-NIC Page 44 of 51 Created On Thu Sep 24 01:08:47 IST 2015 O/COMA/207/2014 CAV JUDGMENT decision would bind not only the members of the  Union,   but   also   to   those   workers   who   are   not  members of such Union.
33. *****
34. *****
35. *****
36. *****
37. *****
38. *****
39. This   Court   considered   the   relevant  provisions   of   the   1946   Act,   the   object  underlying conferment of power on Representative  Union and the action  taken by it and held that  when   a   Representative   Union   appears   in   any  proceeding   under   the   Act,   none   else   can   be  allowed to appear not even the employee at whose  instance   proceedings   might   have   been   started  under  Section  42(4)  of the Act.  The  Court  held  that   if   the   Representative   Union   appears,   the  decision taken by that Union would be final and  binding."                    (emphasis supplied)

19. Admittedly,   the   TLA   is   the   Representative   Union  which   has   already   taken   a   decision   to   accord   its  consent to the Scheme. When there is a Representative  Union, duly recognized as such under the GIR Act, in  the   view   of   this   Court,   the   applicant,   which   is  purported   to   be   a   Committee   formed   by   521   workmen,  would not have  locus standi  to appear in the matter.  Page 45 of 51 HC-NIC Page 45 of 51 Created On Thu Sep 24 01:08:47 IST 2015 O/COMA/207/2014 CAV JUDGMENT The decision to sanction the Scheme has already been  taken   by   the   representative   union   by   filing   an  affidavit dated 26.07.2008. 

20. The submission that the registration of the TLA,  the   Representative   Union   was   cancelled   vide   order  dated 26.02.2014, passed by the Deputy Registrar under  the Trade Unions Act, therefore, the applicant should  be impleaded, is without merit. It is clear from the  documents on record, and not disputed by the learned  counsel   for   the   applicant,   that   the   order   of  cancellation   has   been   stayed   by   the   Industrial  Tribunal, though with certain conditions. One of the  conditions is that the TLA will not take any policy  decision without the permission of the Court. However,  the policy decision to accord sanction to the Scheme  has   already   been   taken   on   26.07.2008.   The   order   of  cancellation   of   the   registration   has   been   passed   on  26.02.2014 and conditionally stayed by the Industrial  Tribunal   on   16.06.2014.   The   said   cancellation   and  conditional   restoration   cannot     relate   back   or   be  acted upon retrospectively. The above orders would not  adversely   affect   a   decision   that   has   already   been  Page 46 of 51 HC-NIC Page 46 of 51 Created On Thu Sep 24 01:08:47 IST 2015 O/COMA/207/2014 CAV JUDGMENT taken years ago. Moreover, it is not disputed that the  TLA   still   retains   the   status   of   the   Representative  Union.

21. As, for all intents and purposes, the TLA is the  Representative Union, in view of the principles of law  enunciated   by   the   Supreme   Court   in  Shivanand  Gaurishankar Baswanti Vs. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills  and  others  (Supra.),  this Court is unable to accept  the   submissions   advanced   on   behalf   of   the   applicant  that   its   impleadment   is   necessary   to   represent   the  case of the workmen and protect their interest.

22. A contention has been raised that the majority of  the workmen comprising the applicant Committee do not  have   faith   in   the  TLA.   Allegations   of  malafide  have  also been made regarding the act of sanction by the  TLA, to the Scheme. In this regard, the Supreme Court  has   held,   in  Shivanand   Gaurishankar   Baswanti   Vs.  Laxmi   Vishnu   Textile   Mills   and   others   (Supra.),   as  below :

42. The Court also held that bona fides or mala  fides of the representative Union has nothing to  do with the complete ban imposed by the Act  on   Page 47 of 51 HC-NIC Page 47 of 51 Created On Thu Sep 24 01:08:47 IST 2015 O/COMA/207/2014 CAV JUDGMENT the   appearance   of   any   one   else   except   the   representative   of   employees  under  Section   30   of   the Act."                    (emphasis supplied)

23. In   view   of   the   above   settled   position   of   law  enunciated by the Supreme Court, which squarely covers  the legal issues arising in the present application,  it follows that the applicant has no right to appear  or act in the proceedings under the GIR Act, where the  Representative   Union   has   entered   appearance   and   has  acted as a representative of the employees.

24. The   allegations   of  malafide  and   loss   of  confidence   in   the   Representative   Union,   therefore,  have no relevance in view of the dictum of the Supreme  Court.

25. A submission has been advanced on behalf of the  applicant   that   this   Court   may   consider   the   present  application as one for leave to appear at the hearing  of   the   petition,   under   Rule­34   of  the   Rules.   The  applicant   had   notice   of   the   petition   which,  admittedly, was advertised. It, however, did not file  any objections within the stipulated period of time.  It   has   now   appeared   belatedly   by   the   present  Page 48 of 51 HC-NIC Page 48 of 51 Created On Thu Sep 24 01:08:47 IST 2015 O/COMA/207/2014 CAV JUDGMENT application   for   joining.   This   Court   is   unable   to  accede to the submission regarding leave to appear, in  view of the total lack of reasons why objections were  not filed at the relevant point of time. Further, in  view of the settled position of law, as the applicant  is not the Representative Union or even a recognized  one, but appears to be a loose body of workmen without  any   legal   status,   it   is   not   possible   to   grant   the  prayer for impleadment.

26. The interest of the workmen can be protected by  the   Representative   Union   at   the   relevant   point   of  time. For this purpose, the presence of the applicant  is not necessary.

27. Mr.S.I.Nanavati,   learned   Senior   Advocate   has  clarified that the secured creditors have been paid by  the Sponsor of the Scheme and not through the funds of  the Company. This aspect further reduces the relevance  of the submissions made on behalf of the applicant.

28. For the aforestated reasons, this Court is of the  considered   view   that   the   applicant,   not   being   the  Representative Union, has no locus standi to pray for  impleadment   as   a   party­respondent   in   the   Company  Page 49 of 51 HC-NIC Page 49 of 51 Created On Thu Sep 24 01:08:47 IST 2015 O/COMA/207/2014 CAV JUDGMENT Petition,   especially   as   the   Representative   Union   is  already there.   

29. The application, being devoid of merit, deserves  to be rejected.

30. It is, accordingly, rejected.

(SMT. ABHILASHA KUMARI, J.)

31. After   the   pronouncement   of   the   judgment,   an  unusual request has been made by Mr.Anshin H. Desai,  learned advocate for the applicant that the hearing of  the main matter, that is, Company Petition No.264/2008  be deferred in view of the rejection of the present  application for impleadment. As the applicant has not  been found to be a proper or necessary party in the  main   matter,   the   request   cannot   be   acceded   to,  especially   in   view   of   the   order   dated   01.09.2015,  passed   by   the   Apex   Court   in   Petition(s)   for   Special  Leave to Appeal (C) No.29282­29284/2008, wherein the  Apex Court has held as below :

"We   would   also   request   the   High   Court   not   to  grant   adjournment   to   either   of   the   parties   and  the   parties   are   directed   not   to   seek   any  Page 50 of 51 HC-NIC Page 50 of 51 Created On Thu Sep 24 01:08:47 IST 2015 O/COMA/207/2014 CAV JUDGMENT adjournment before the High Court."

(SMT. ABHILASHA KUMARI, J.) Gaurav+ Page 51 of 51 HC-NIC Page 51 of 51 Created On Thu Sep 24 01:08:47 IST 2015