The provisions of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950, do not override the provisions of the Companies Act, 1913, which require the Liquidator to obtain the sanction of the Court before instituting any suit or other legal proceedings on behalf of the Company.

Judgement

B. P. SINHA J. : This appeal by special leave is directed against the order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal, dated August 1, 1956, dismissing in limine the appeal against the Award of the Third Industrial Tribunal, dated March 8, 1956. The Great Indian Motor Works Ltd., now in liquidation (hereinafter referred to as the Company ), represented by one of the Managing Directors, K. D. Nundy, is the first appellant. The said K. D. Nundy, in his capacity as the creditor of the Company and/or as the auction-purchaser of the Company, is the second appellant. One hundred and forty-two employees of the Company, represented by the Bus Workers Union, are collectively the first respondent. The second and third respondents, C. D. Nundy and D. L. Dutt, are the Official Liquidators of the Company, appointed by the High Court as such.

2. The relevant facts are these: The Company was incorporated and registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, in 1926, as a private limited company with its registered office at Calcutta. Its business was mainly that of carrying on public transport on Route No. 14 in the City of Calcutta, as also of dealers in and repairers of motor vehicles. It had an authorized capital of six lacs of rupees divided into 600 shares of Rs.1,000 each, out of which, shares worth Rs. 4,00,000 only had been subscribed and paid up. The registered share-holders of the Company, were Kristo Das Nundy, the second appellant, having 246 shares; Chandy Das Nundy, respondent No. 2, having 142 shares, and Kumar Kartick Charan Mullick, holding 12 shares, each of the face value of Rs. 1,000. On account of financial difficulties and disputes between its share-holders, an application for compulsory winding up of the Company was made by the said respondent No. 2, on the Original Side in the High Court at Calcutta. On July 23, 1951, an order for winding up the Company was made, and the Official Receiver was appointed the Official Liquidator of the Company. An appeal against the order aforesaid, was dismissed on December 5, 1951, and the order for winding up the Company, stood confirmed. By an order dated December 11, 1951, the Official Receiver was discharged and the respondents 2 and 3 aforesaid, were appointed Joint official liquidators in his place, with power to sell the business of the Company as a going concern. In April, 1953, the list of the creditors of the Company was settled by the Court, and the second appellant aforesaid, was included in the list as a creditor for the largest amount, namely, Rs. 2,35,818. It may be added that the discharged employees of the Company were not included in the list of creditors thus settled by the Court. After several infructuous attempts for selling the property by auction, on 4-5-1954, the Court ordered the sale of the Company s business free from all encumbrances, outgoings and liabilities, to the highest bidder, subject to confirmation by the Court. The second appellant bid for the purchase of the business with the leave of the Court, and he was declared the highest bidder and purchaser of the business for Rs. 1,42,500 at the sale held on June 12, 1954. The said sale was confirmed by the Calcutta High Court on July 5, 1954. On July 23, 1954, the Official Liquidators issued a notice terminating the services of all the employees of the Company with effect from 24-7-1954, except one Assistant and one clerk, whose services were retained until the winding up proceedings were completed. On July 24, the Official Liquidators put the appellant No. 2, the auction-purchaser, in possession, of the business of the Company, which is now being carried on by the second appellant as the sole proprietor.

3. As a result of the termination of the services of the one hundred and forty two employees of the Company, as aforesaid, an industrial dispute was raised at the instance of the said employees whose list is attached to the order of Reference, dated August 26, 1954, which is in these terms:

"Whereas an Ind