B.V. Nagarathna, J.— This company petition has been registered pursuant to an order dated 12.6.2000 passed by the Board of Industrial Financial Reconstruction ("BIFR", for the sake of brevity) vide reference No. 505/1992 dated 30.6.2000. Pursuant to the opinion of the BIFR that Bharath Gold Mines Limited ("BGML", for the sake of brevity) ought to be wound up, reference was made to this Court to consider the winding up of BGML in accordance with law.

2. In this application the applicant-BGML has sought permission to implement the proposal of the Union of India dated 7.8.2006, pursuant to the Division Bench Judgment in W.A. No. 1747-1757/2001 dated 26.9.2003 and particularly the documents pertaining to global bid which have been filed in two volumes.

Factual,Matrix:

3. BGML, which is a government company, wholly-owned by Government of India, was incorporated in the year 1972 and the main object of the company is to extract gold in Kolar Gold Fields (KGF) and surrounding areas. Originally the said gold fields were being run by M/s. John Taylor & Sons and the same was acquired by the erstwhile Government of Mysore and in December 1962 the mines were transferred to the Central Government and was known as Kolar Gold Mines undertaking. In the year 1972, alter the incorporation of BGML it started incurring loss and the net worth of the company became less, than the accumulated loss and thus became a sick industrial company within the meaning of Sick Industrial Companies Act ("SICA", for the sake of brevity).

4. The Board of Directors of the Company passed a resolution on 13.2.1992 for making a reference to BIFR and accordingly a case was registered under Section 15(1) of the SICA in case No. 505/1992 before the BIFR. By an order dated 21.2.2000, BIFR rejected the submission made by its employees for revival and it found that the efforts of the government to privatize the company had tailed and the employees had no resources to bring promoters contribution of the required magnitude and recorded a prima facie conclusion that BGML should be wound up in public interest and directed to issue of show cause notice as to why a recommendation for winding up should not be issued, to all concerned. Alter considering the objections, BIFR passed a final order on 12.6.2000, continuing the prima facie opinion that the sick industrial company was not likely to make its net worth exceed its accumulated loss within a reasonable time while meeting ail its Financial obligations under the company, as a result thereof was not likely to become viable in future and that it was just and equitable and in public interest that it be wound up under Section 20 of SICA.

5. Being aggrieved by the said order various employees' associations filed appeals before the Appellate Authority (for short, "AAIFR"). Alter considering the matter, by order dated 15.11.2000 it dismissed the appeals and thereby confirmed the order of BIFR. The said order of AAIFR was challenged in several writ petitions before this Court and a learned single Judge by a common order dated 16.3.2001 allowed the writ petitions and quashed the order dated 12.6.2000, passed by BIFR, and order dated 15.11.2000 passed by AAIFR and order dated 29.1.2001, passed by Government of India under Section 25(O) of the Industrial Disputes Act, permitting the closure of BGML, with a further direction to BIFR to re-consider the claim made by employees' unions and to find ways and means to revive BGML.

6. Being aggrieved by the said order and direction the Union of India tiled Writ Appeal Nos. 1747-1757/2001. A Division Bench of this Court held that the learned single Judge could not have interfered with the decision of BIFR and AAIFR and thereby directing the BIKK to re-consider the same and further held that there was no infirmity in the order dated 21.1.2001 of the Central Government granting permission for closure of BGML under Section 25(O) of the Industrial Disputes Act. However, in its conclusion the Division Be