Back
2018 Supreme(Bom) 1018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Manik Keshav Jagdale – Petitioner
Versus
Parner Taluka Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana And Anr. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 12810, 12811, 12812, 12813, 12814, 12815, 12816, 12817, 12818, 12824, 12825, 12826, 12827, 12828, 12829, 12830, 12831, 12832, 12833, 12880, 12881, 12882, 12883, 12884, 12885, 12886, 12887, 12888, 12889, 12890, 12891, 12892, 12903, 12904, 12905, 12906, 12907, 12908, 12909, 12910, 12911 of 2017 7357, 7675, 7676, 7677, 7678, 7679, 7680, 7681, 7682, 7683, 7684, 7685, 7686, 7687, 7688, 7689, 7690, 7691, 7692, 7693, 7694, 7695, 7696, 7697, 7698, 7699, 7700, 7701, 7702, 7703, 7704, 7705, 7706, 7707, 7708, 7709, 7710, 7711, 7712, 7713, 7714 of 2018
Decided On : 17-07-2018
For the Petitioner: Shri. Barde Parag Vijay
For the Respondent:Shri. Sonwane Mahesh R. Advocate, Shri. Shinde Abasaheb D
Headnote:
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 33C(2) and 25-FF - Cooperative Societies Rules, 1961 - Rule 18A(2)(d)(ii) - Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Appellate authority – Challenged judgments - Impugned judgments - It is by consent of parties that all se matters being identical are taken up for hearing - Court have heard lengthy submissions of learned Advocates - Workers who have preferred first petitions are undisputedly former employees of Parner Factory - All of m have attained age of superannuation - Each of m has preferred an application under Section 33C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (ID Act) before Labour Court for putting forth their claims towards unpaid wages bonus gratuity and leave encashment - Parner Factory went into liquidation - A State employee was appointed as a Liquidator - State Cooperative (MSCBank) had loaned huge amounts to Parner Factory – Held, condition of pre deposit if an appeal is to be filed and interest and penalty components are found only under Gratuity Act since it is a beneficial piece of legislation - When a specific enactment providing for two levels of adjudicatory processes in form of controlling authority and appellate authority is in place Labour Court cannot entertain such a claim under Section 33C(2) - Petitions filed by workers refore cannot be entertained with regard to non-quantification of bonus and gratuity- record reveals that though Liquidator was served with Court notice in all se matters before Labour Court he chose to remain absent and did not participate in said proceedings - Though re can be no dispute that salary structure of se workers is governed by Wage Board non-appearance of Liquidator has undoubtedly caused prejudice to se workers as enough material was not on record to assist Labour Court in proper adjudication of claims of workers to extent of unpaid wages and leave encashments – Order accordingly
In the first group of 41 Writ Petitions, the identically placed former workers (all have presently retired on attaining the age of superannuation) of respondent No.1 Sugar Factory (hereinafter referred to as the 'Parner Factory'), are aggrieved by the identical judgment and order viz. 12.5.2017 in Application (IDA) No.80 of 2016 and in connected cases. Though the applications under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, are partly allowed, the entire claims of the said petitioners including the claims for gratuity and bonus, have not been granted by the impugned judgments.
2. In the second group of 41 Writ Petitions, the Parner Factory has challenged the same judgments through the Liquidator on the ground that the auction purchaser respondent No.2 Kranti Sugar and Power Limited (Unit Parner Sugar) (hereinafter referred to as ''Kranti Sugar'), has been absolved of the entire liability in so far as the payment of legal dues of the workers are concerned.
3. It is by the consent of the parties that all these matters, being identical, are taken up for hearing. I have heard the lengthy submissions of the learned Advocates.
4. The workers, who have preferred the first 41 petitions, are undisputedly the former employees of the Parner Factory. All of them have attained the age of superannuation. Each of them has preferred an application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“ID” Act) before the Labour Court for putting forth their claims towards unpaid wages, bonus, gratuity and leave encashment.
5. Each of these workers claim to have worked upto 1.9.2013. The Parner Factory went into liquidation in 2005. A State employee was appointed as a Liquidator in between 2005 to 2006. The Maharashtra State Cooperative (“MSC”Bank) had loaned huge amounts to the Parner Factory. An employee of the MSC Bank was appointed as a Liquidator in between 2006 to 2015. The possession of the Parner Factory was with the Bank from 2011. Again from 2015, a State employee was appointed as a Liquidator.
6. It is stated that the MSC Bank proceeded under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“the SARFAESI Act”) for seeking auction of the immovable properties of the Parner Factory. The tenders were issued on 10.7.2015 and the auction was conducted on 15.9.2015.
7. A copy of the bid document prepared by the Authorized Officer of the MSC Bank indicates under Chapter VII Clause 4 that the authorized officer of the Bank does not assume any responsibility for any shortfall of the movable/immovable assets and several dues including that of the workers and such dues, if any, both existing and future relating to the property, will be borne/paid by the purchaser. There is a dispute whether the Deed of Undertaking cum Indemnity was signed by the Kranti Sugar auction bidder or not. The Sale Certificate, however, indicates that the purchaser has accepted all the encumbrances presently thereon, on the property and which may arise in future and has agreed to pay the same as per the tender conditions accepted by the purchaser.
8. It is in the above backdrop that these workers preferred their claims before the Labour Court under Section 33C(2) impleading the Parner Factory and Kranti Sugar as the respondents. They prayed for a direction that these respondents should pay the legal dues of these workers. By the impugned judgments, the Labour Court has concluded that the Parner Factory, through its Liquidator is alone the respondent, who will have to satisfy the legal dues of the workers, being their employer.
9. The workers are aggrieved with the impugned judgments on two counts. Firstly, that meager amounts have been granted by the Labour Court and the claims of bonus and gratuity have been ignored. Secondly, that Kranti Sugar should not have been absolved of the liability to pay the compensation since they had stepped into the shoes of the earlier employer. Parner Factory is aggrieve
