Petitioners are two of the workmen of the first respondent, a firm of which respondents 2 to 5 are the partners. The first respondent is an assessee borne on the rolls of the seventh respondent.

2. Going by the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 6 and 7, an amount of Rs.14,80,345/- is due from the first respondent firm as sales tax due for the year 2001-02 and 2002-03. Revenue recovery certificates and demand notices were issued periodically to the first respondent firm and its partners. Since the demands were not satisfied, the movables of the firm were attached on 23-7-2003 and sold in auction for Rs.17,525/-. Apart from seizing the bank account of the firm in the Syndicate Bank, Cherlai, Kochi and lord Krishna Bank, Eramallur, two items of immovable properties have been attached during the course of the revenue recovery proceedings. The upset price of the land comes to Rs.35,80,672/- and that of the building comes to Rs.55,39,180/-. After the immovable were attached, they were brought to sale on 17-6-2005, however adjourned for want of sufficient bidders.

3. While the sale stood adjourned as aforesaid, this writ petition is filed by two of the employees of the first respondent contending that they and others have preferred Ext.P8 application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter the “ID Act”, for short, before the Labour Court, Kollam as Claim Petition No.62/2005 and that by virtue of the statutory provisions contained in the ID Act, respondents 1 to 5 are obliged to make payments as claimed in Ext.P8.

4. Ext.P8 claim petition was preceded by a demand by the workmen and refusal by the management. Even the question as to whether the provisions of the ID Act, as contended by the workmen, would apply, is also in dispute, going by Ext.P6 reply issued on behalf of the management to the workmen.

5. Be that as it may, the short issue that arises for decision in this case is whether the State of Kerala is entitled to proceed with the revenue recovery proceedings for dues under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (“KGST Act”, for short), or whether the claims of the workmen made in Ext.P8, which are yet to be decided are to be treated as preferential claims and further, whether the workmen, at this stage, can have any claim paripasu with the State on the face of Section 26B of the KGST Act.

6. It is strenuously urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that going by the various decisions of the Apex Court and of this Court, the claims for wages, bonus and other statutory benefits have first priority against all other claims and that no secured or unsecured creditors, including banks or financial institutions are entitled to be paid before the workmen’s dues are paid. The sustainability of the claim of the workman for paripasu distribution with the other creditors has been recognized. In support of the said position, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the decisions of the Apex court in National Textile Workers’ Union etc. v. P.R. Ramakrishnan and others, 1983 (1) SCR 922, Dena Bank’s case, (2000) 5 SCC 694, Allahabad Bank’s case, (2000) 4 SCC 406, Andhra Bank’s case, AIR 2005 SC 1814 and Oswal Agro Furane Ltd. v. Oswal Agro Furane Workers Union, 2005 (1) KLT 936 (SC). Relying on the last among the aforesaid decisions, it was urged that the first respondent is not entitled to close down the unit without obtaining the prior permission of the appropriate Government.

7. Per contra, the learned senior Government Pleader for Taxes contended that by virtue of Section 26B of the KGST Act, the State has a first charge on the property of respondents 1 to 5 for the arrears due under the KGST Act and the question whether there has to be a paripasu distribution of assets between the workmen who are the claimants in Ext.P8 petition and the State, would not arise in this case.

8. To resolve the issue of law raised, firstly, a reference to Section 33C (1) of the ID Act woul