( 1 ) ). By this application the Textile Labour Association has made a prayer for issuance of a direction for payment of salary to the workers for the period they have actually worked and allowed to work and have produced the goods out of the sale proceeds of the finished goods sold in pursuance of the directions of this Court. The petition is resisted by respondent No. 3-the State Bank of Saurashtra a secured creditor having first charge on the current assets of the company which include the finished goods.

( 2 ) ). The petitioner has relied on Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rohtas Industries Ltd. (1987 - II-LLJ-1) and of this court in the case of Amruta Mills. On behalf of the respondents it is submitted that these Judgments cannot be applied and followed as precedents and the bank is having legal rights as secured creditor and those rights cannot be destroyed unless the law authorises the same and it is submitted that there is no law which requires to ignore the rights of the secured creditors

( 3 ) ). The workmen of the mill are about 2 700 and it is submitted that the mill came to be closed on February 2 1992 without permission as required by the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and without paying even the wages for the months of November December 1991 January and February 1992 It is submitted that the wages for the period of November 1991 comes to Rs. 24 20 0 for the month of December 1991 it comes to Rs. 32 50 0 for the month of January 1992 Rs. 34 0 0 and for February 1992 it comes to Rs. 29 0 0 Thus in all Rs. 1 19 75 0 is the amount of outstanding wages for the period for which the workers have actually worked.

( 4 ) ). In the main petition prayers are made for declaring that the closure of the undertaking without prior permission under Section 25-0 of the Industrial Disputed Act is illegal and void and for a direction to the authority to initiate criminal prosecution against respondent No. 2 for breach of the provisions of Section 25-0 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Further prayers are made for appointment of a committee for disposal of finished and unfinished goods lying in the mill compound and for direction to make payment of wages to the workers. Interim relief is also claimed for payment of wages for the period for which the workmen have actually worked and also for the period thereafter on the ground that the closure is illegal.

( 5 ) ). By an earlier order of this Court the goods have been sold and amount of Rs. 47 62 721 has been realised.

( 6 ) ). Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Workmen of Rohtas Industries Ltd. v. Rohtas Industries Ltd. (supra ). It was a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India and in that case the Supreme Court had directed payment of wages to the workers against the claim made by the secured creditor a financial institution. Para 3 of the judgment is strongly relied upon by the petitioner which requires to be quoted in full because that has been the subject-matter of arguments on both sides. It reads as follows (at pp. 2-3):7. It is no doubt true that these products the stock of which have been shown in the report and the value of which has been shown by the liquidator as Rs. 91 77 0 is pledged with banks is a priority in law in favour of the banks but it also could not be disputed that these stocks were the products of this industry before its closure and therefore the workers also contributed their labour and it is the result of their hard work that these stocks could be produced and in our opinion therefore it could not be said that the wages and emoluments for the period up to closure would not rank in priority. It is also significant that after the closure in July 1984 till today in spite of the order passed by this Court the workers have not been paid. Their subsistence and living is also perhaps of par