The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner bank lacked locus standi to challenge the workers' wage order and was not entitled to interest during the liquidation period. The petitioner bank could raise a claim for interest if surplus assets were available with the Official Assignee after payment of all liabilities.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

A. The Challenge

In these petitions, we are tasked upon to decide the competing claims of the Petitioner-Bank towards interest on credit facilities extended to the society which has gone in liquidation during period of its liquidation and that of the workers of that society for their unpaid wages. Since the amount available with the official assignee after monetization of assets of the society is limited, both parties stake priority for their respective claims over that amount. Petitioner-Bank challenges the order passed by State Government rejecting its claim for interest during period of liquidation of the society. It also challenges the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour sanctioning the amount of wages to 322 workers of the society. Both parties claim priority to receive the amount available with the official assignee.

B. FACTS IN WRIT PETITION NO. 330 OF 2011:

2. Latur Co-operative Oil Industries was a registered Co-operative Society (in short ‘the society’) under the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1960’). The petitioner is an Apex Co-operative Bank of the State of Maharashtra registered under the provisions of Banking Regulation Act, 1949, which finances inter alia other co-operative societies. In the year 1970, a midterm loan of Rs.30,00,000/- was sanctioned by the petitioner - Bank to Latur Co-operative Oil Industries, which mortgaged its properties bearing Old Survey No.134 (Revised Survey No.142) admeasuring 23 acres in Latur along with plant and machinery. On 16.05.1978 Latur Cooperative Oil Mill went into liquidation, when the outstanding amount due to petitioner-Bank was Rs.8,22,008/-. On 10.09.1997 the Society was revived, but unfortunately it again went in liquidation on 17.05.2002. Final liquidation order for the Society was passed on 18.12.2002.

3. The petitioner - Bank submitted its claim of Rs.1,83,69,943/- with the liquidator on 14.02.2003, which included

4. By order dated 19.11.2007, the liquidator decided various claims and sanctioned amount of Rs.8,22,008/- towards principal and Rs.11,05,771/- towards interest during the period of revival of the society. The interest during the entire period of liquidation of the society was rejected. The petitioner - Bank accepted the total amount of Rs.19,27,879/- under the protest and submitted balance claim for Rs.1,73,36,840/- on 17.05.2008. In the meantime, the Divisional Joint Registrar, Latur passed order under Section 21 of the Act of 1960 de-registereing the Society. The District Deputy Registrar, Latur was appointed as official assignee and all the assets of the society were given in his possession.

5. For the first time on 16.01.2004, petitioner invoked provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Securitisation Act’) and sent notice under Section 13 (2) to the liquidator. However, admittedly the petitioner - Bank did not pursue the remedy further under the Securitisation Act. Instead, it filed a revision petition before the State Government challenging the order dated 19.11.2007 passed by the liquidator to claim the remaining amount of interest. Since the revision petition was not being decided, Writ Petition No.5623 of 2009 was filed before this Court and direction was issued by this Court on 26.08.2009 to decide the revision within six months. In the meantime, the revision petition was amended by the petitioner-Bank by challenging the order of de-registration dated 09.05.2