Heard by consent of parties finally in view of urgency shown at admission stage.

2. The impugned order is passed by the Collector/Respondent No.1 dated 5 July 2012 pursuance to the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.291/2012 dated 1 March 2012.

3. The basic events as recorded in the earlier order are as under:

“3 By the present writ petition, the Petitioner who has advanced loans to Respondent No.3 sugar factory, which are outstandinggggg, had challenged the order dated 27.09.2011 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour under Section 33C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the further order passed by the Tahsildar, Taluka Haveli on 12.12.2001 attaching the stock of sugar bags to the extent of 82092 quintal. The further action of the proposed auction of the said sugar bags is also challenged.

4. The Petitioner claims that the entire stock of sugar of Respondent No.3 Karkhana has been pledged with the Petitioner by the Karkhana by executing various Deeds of Pledge, which are annexed to the Petition and that in terms of the Deeds of Pledge, the Petitioner is in possession of the pledged sugar bags. On account of the order of the attachment, the godowns in which the sugar is stored have been sealed by the Tahasildar.

5. Perusal of the impugned recovery certificate shows that apart from holding that the dues of the workers are to the extent of 14,01,09,606.49/-, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour has also directed that the said dues should be recovered under the provisions of MLR Code, 1966 by sale of sugar bags and other movable or immovable property of the karkhana. This part of the order dated 27.07.2011 is clearly beyond the scope of power conferred on the appropriate Government under Section 33C(1).

8. It is therefore directed that the Tahsildar shall sell the attached sugar by public auction with adequate notice to the Petitioner bank and Respondent No.3 Karkhana. The Petitioner bank will not only be entitled to participate in the auction but will be also entitled to bring buyers so that adequate price can be fetched in the auction. After the auction is completed and the amount is recovered, the Tahsildar, Haveli shall deposit the entire amount of sale proceeds with the Petitioner bank, which shall be retained separately under a no lien account earning interest.

9. The question regarding priority and claim of the Petitioner and Respondent no.2 will thereafter be adjudicated by the Collector, Pune under Section 218 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. The Collector, Pune will consider the claims of both the parties or any other party, in case any other party makes any claim, and thereafter make a final order in accordance with law after taking into consideration the provisions of Indian Contract Act, Industrial Laws and the judgments of the High Court and Supreme Court operating in the field relating to the subject matter. This exercise shall be completed by the Collector on or before 31.05.2012. All the rival contentions of the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 in that regard are kept open.

10. In case the Collector comes to a conclusion that the dues of the workmen cannot be paid through the sale proceeds of sugar, which is directed to be auctioned, the Collector will be free to proceed to consider the request of the Union to recover the amount from the other properties of karkhana. However, if the Collector proceeds to do so, the Collector will have to consider the objection of the Petitioner Bank, since the Petitioner bank claims to have mortgage in respect of immovable property and also claims to have charge over the movable property of karkhana. Even when the Collector considers the claim of Respondent No.2 Union in such a situation, the Collector shall hear the Petitioner and any other creditors of Respondent No.3 karkhana and thereafter pass an appropriate order of adjudication under Section 218 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 in accordance with law.”

4. The Respond