R.V. Easwar, J.

1. In these proceedings, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have called in question the order passed by the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (“AIFR”), New Delhi on 30.6.2011 in the following circumstances.

2. M/s Incab Industries Ltd (hereinafter referred to as IIL) was a sick industrial company. Some time in October, 1999 a reference was made by it to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as “BIFR”) and it was declared a sick industrial company by an order passed by BIFR on 4.4.2000. The State Bank of India (“SBI”) was appointed as the Operating Agency (“OA”) under section 17(3) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as “SICA”) to examine the viability of the company and submit a rehabilitation scheme. There were several teething troubles in the preparation of the rehabilitation scheme, the details of which need not detain us. After several years there were three proposals submitted by the following companies for rehabilitation of the sick company : Silver Jubilee Infrastructure Ltd. (SJIL), R.R. Kabel (RRK) and Land Lease Co. Ltd. (LLC). These proposals were examined by the OA which also held discussions with the propounders. Several rounds of litigation followed thereafter. In the meantime two other companies also joined the fray and they are Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. (PARL) and TATA Steels Ltd. (TSL). They had also submitted draft rehabilitation schemes. The matter reached the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court which gave certain directions vide order dated 14th May, 2009. Pursuant to this order three bidders were permitted to submit the Draft Rehabilitation Scheme (DRS) and they were (1) RRK, (2) TSL and (3) PARL. Pursuant to the orders of the Supreme Court, hearings took place before the BIFR on 2.7.2009, 19.8.2009 and 22.9.2009. In these proceedings the BIFR allowed several workers’ associations to join the proceedings if they so desired subject to furnishing of proof that they were recognized unions of the sick company.

3. In the hearing which took place on 22.9.2009 before the BIFR the coram was represented by Mr. K Cherian Verghese, Chairman, Mr. Pawan Raina, Member and Nirmal Singh, Member. On that date, the BIFR considered the report of the OA dated 1.9.2009 and directed the OA – (a) to give a further report in a tabular form setting out the parameters, (b) to hold a joint meeting with all the concerned parties and (c) submit a further report containing the valuation of the three proposals from RRK, TSL and PARL as per the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court.

4. Pursuant to the above, the OA conducted a joint meeting on 20.10. 2009 and through its report dated 26.10.2009 gave its comprehensive and comparative analysis of all the three schemes and reiterated its earlier opinion that the scheme propounded by TSL was best suited and the future of the workers of the sick company would be much secure with TSL whose proposal was the best so far as the interest of the workers and their job security is concerned. It also noted that the schemes propounded by RRK and PARL were not worthy of consideration; RRK’s scheme was such that the net worth of the sick company cannot become positive and PARL had no experience in running a manufacturing unit as it was only an asset reconstruction company. The OA also noted that the motive of RRK and PARL appeared to be to grab valuable real estate of the sick company as was evident from their proposal to sell the immoveable assets of the sick company to finance their schemes which invited strong objections from the workers. Compared to this, TSL did not propose to sell any of the immoveable assets to finance their rehabilitation scheme. This was the gist of the report dated 26.10.2009.

5. The report was submitted to the BIFR which held a hearing on 12.11.2009. On this date, the parties opposi