JUDGMENT - DESHPANDE A.P., J.: - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of parties.

2. The present petition has been field in a representative capacity for and on behalf of the workers, working with the third respondent-Godavari Dudhana Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana, which has gone in liquidation. The order passed in this petition relates to all the employees, who were in the employment of the respondent No. 4 and who had initiated proceeding before Industrial Court, for claiming arrears of wages, by filing the complaint under section 28, sub-section (1) read with Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971.

Initially, on 18-9-2001, 243 workers filed a complaint under section 28, read with Item 9 of Schedule IV, of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions had Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as M.R.T.U. P.U.L.P. Act, 1971) before the Industrial Court, making a demand as regard to their wages for about sixty months, which according to the employees, were to paid by the third respondent, as they were facing the financial crunch. Similar complaints, came to be filed by 108 employees on 12-10-2001 and subsequent thereto, again about 7 persons filed similar complaints before Industrial Court. The Industrial Court, on hearing the application, seeking interim relief, had issued direction to the respondent No. 3 to deposit the amount of outstanding wages in the Court. The respondent No. 3 did not and could not comply with the said order. On 20th March, 2002, the second respondent, Commissioner of Sugar, State of Maharashtra, passed an order of winding up of the respondent No. 3, Karkhana, as it happened to be a society. Since passing of the said order, the assets of the third respondent are in possession of the Liquidator, through whom, the third respondent is being sued in this petition. The interim orders passed by Industrial Court were challenged by the third respondent by filing writ petition before the learned Single Judge of this Court and the said petition came to be disposed of without granting any relief to the third respondent. In another petition, bearing Writ Petition No. 2838 of 2002, by an order dated 30-1-2003, which petition was filed by respondent No. 3, challenging the maintainability of the complaints on the file of the Industrial Court this Court directed the present petitioners to move an application before the Industrial Court and seek permission to implead the respondent No. 3 as party-respondent in the said proceedings. When the present petitioners moved the Industrial Court, industrial Court rightly directed the present petitioners to move the respondent No. 2 to obtain leave of the Registrar pursuant to the provision contained in section 107 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The present petitioners moved the respondent No. 2, Registrar and sought his permission to implead the society through the Liquidator as party-respondent in the proceeding pending on the file of Industrial Court. The rejection of the said application, moved by the petitioners before the respondent No. 2, has given a cause for the petitioners to file the instant petition, calling in question the legality, validity and propriety of the order, passed by the respondent No. 2, dated 1-9-2003.

3. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were in employment of the respondent No. 3 and were not paid their salaries for quite a long time, as the financial position of the respondent No. 3 was hopelessly bad. The petitioners workmen were justified in moving the Industrial Court, claiming the amount of wages. During pendency of the said proceedings, as an order of winding up came to be passed, the question of seeking leave of the second respondent arose by virtue of provisions of section 107 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. Perusal of the order impugned reveals that the said order is a very

Click Here to Read the rest of this document