Karnataka High Court
Professional Workers' Trade Union ... vs Union Of India And Ors. on 23 February, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2002(1)KARLJ474, 2001 AIR - KANT. H. C. R. 1166, 2001 AIHC 2735
Author: N. Kumar
Bench: Ashok Bhan, N. Kumar
ORDER N. Kumar, J.
1. The first petitioner is a Trade Union and the second petitioner is the President of Kolar Branch of Indian National Trade Union Congress and also the employee of the second respondent-Mines. These two petitioners have preferred these writ petitions purporting to be in public interest challenging the action of the Union of India to wind up the second respondent-Mines, namely the Bharat Gold Mines Limited.
2. Petitioners' case is the second respondent-company after it was taken over by the Government of Mysore and the Government of India started showing substantial losses due to wrong pricing policy adopted by the Government of India and also due to various factors. Consequently, the second respondent-company was showing losses eveiy year in its balance-sheet and ultimately the second respondent-company was referred to the fourth respondent, namely Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction under Section 15(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 for detenmnation of the measures which shall be adopted with respect to the said company. It is their case that the fourth respondent-Board instead of fanning a scheme for reviving and rehabilitating the second respondent-company by following the procedure prescribed under the Act is adopting the method of asking the Government of India every time whether it is prepared to meet the cost of revival proposal and on their reply that they are not ready to do so has now recommended for winding up the second respondent by its order dated 12-6-2000 made in Case No. 505 of 1992. Challenging the aforesaid order, the employees of the Union, the Officers Association and one joint venture applicant have preferred appeals before the 5th respondent, the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction. The 5th respondent after clubbing all the three appeals by a considered common order has dismissed the above three appeals by his order dated 35-11-2000. It is thereafter the second respondent has moved the Government of India seeking permission for closure of the second respondent-Mines under Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is at thai stage the present writ petitions were filed on 1-1-2001 for a declaration that the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in trying to wind up the second respondent-Mines is illegal and opposed to the interest of Indian economy and direct them to continue the mining operations without hindrance as before and for other consequential reliefs.
3. When the above writ petitions were listed before this Court on 9-1-2001 the Counsel for the petitioners sought time to collect the facts and figures from the balance-sheet of the second respondent-company to establish that the disclosure will adversely affect the economic health of the country. Thereafter, the petitioners have filed an amended writ petition giving certain facts and figures. An attempt is made by way of such particulars to demonstrate that the balance-sheet of the second respondent-company do not reflect true state of affairs. According to the petitioners if proper evaluation of the company is made as suggested by them it would show that company is in fact making profits and if proper persons are appointed to manage the affairs of the second respondent with zero liability, the company is capable of making huge profits besides avoiding possible unemployment problem for the 4,000 employees/officers. In the said amended petition it is averred that subsequent to the filing of the writ petition the first respondent-Union of India has granted permission under Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act to close the industrial unit of the second respondent with effect from 1-3-2001 by its order Annexure-S, dated 29-1-2001. Further it is stated the said order of closure is challenged before this Court in Bharat Gold Mines Officers' Association, Kolar Gold Fields and Ors. v. Union of India, and in the said writ petitions interim orders are not granted and the said writ petitions are pending consideration.
4. From the aforesaid facts it is clear the grievance of the petitioners is, though the audited balance-sheet of the company shows that the company is running under loss it does not reflect the true state of affairs. They want the Court to act on the revaluation made by them to come to the conclusion the company is not sick and is not running under loss. The petitioners want the Court to act on the balance-sheet and other statements prepared by them with the assistance of office-bearers of BGML Officers Association adopting certain criteria for the above purpose and not to take note of the audited balance-sheets of the company. This Court cannot embark upon an enquiry to find out whether the audited balance-sheets of the company is correct or the balance-sheet prepared by the petitioners with the assistance of BGML officers is correct in its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. This is a question of fact which cannot be gone into in these proceedings. Therefore, we do not find any substance in this submission made by the petitioners.
5. Secondly, the petitioners contend the order passed by the fourth and fifth respondents holding that in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the reluctance on the pare of the Government of India as well as Government of Karnataka it is not possible to rehabilitate the company which is before the BIFR for the last eight years and further finding that no workable scheme could be prepared under those circumstances is not correct. When the statutory authorities constituted under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 has come to a categorical conclusion that in their opinion the Sick industrial company, M/s. Bharat Gold Mines Limited is not likely to make its net worth exceed its accumulated loss within a reasonable time while meeting all its financial obligations and that the company as a result thereof is not likely to become viable in future and it is just, equitable and in public interest that it is wound up under Section 20(1) of the Act which finding has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority. The petitioners have stated in the writ petition that they are contemplating to challenge the aforesaid orders passed by the Appellate Authority. When the petitioners have an alternate remedy to challenge the said order of the Appellate Authority, it is not open to this Court to sit in judgment in these proceedings filed by way of a public interest litigation to look into the correctness and legality of those findings. Therefore, this is not the forum where the validity of the orders could be gone into.
6. Thirdly, subsequent to the filing of this writ petition the Government of India has passed an order under Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act granting permission to close the industrial unit of the second respondent with effect from 1-3-2001 under its order dated 29-1-2001 produced as Annexure-S. The petitioners have categorically stated that the said order has been challenged by them before this Court in W.P. Nos. 4503 to 4507 of 2001 and the said writ petitions are now pending for consideration on the file of this Court. Therefore, when the aforesaid orders are already challenged before this Court again in these proceedings this Court cannot go into the validity of the aforesaid orders.
7. In view of the aforesaid it is not a case where the action complained of by the respondent is palpably illegal or mala fide. It is also not a case where such an action would affect the group of persons who are not in a position to protect their interest on account of poverty, incapacity or ignorance. On the contrary steps have been taken to challenge the action of the respondents before this Court by invoking writ jurisdiction. It is asserted in the writ petitions itself that the petitioners taking action against the orders passed by the respondents 4 and 5 also. Therefore, when the impugned action of respondents are challenged by the persona who are aggrieved by the same, this writ petition filed under the garb of public interest litigation is not maintainable in law. Therefore, we do not find any merit in these writ petitions. Accordingly, they are dismissed.
8. However, it is made clear any observations made by us in this order shall in no way be construed as deciding any of the contentions urged by the petitioner's before us and in the proceedings already initiated by the petitioners challenging the action of the respondents and to be initiated by them the authorities are at liberty to decide those cases on its merits without being in any way influenced by the observations made by us in these proceedings.