S. Siri Jagan, J.

1. A very vexing question as to the interpretation of the Companies Act, 1956, the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 ("SICA" for short), and the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, ("Securitisation Act" for short) in respect of a claim of workmen of a company in liquidation under S.529A of the Companies Act, as against a secured creditor who has sold the assets of the company in liquidation in exercise of their powers under S.13(4) of the Securitisation Act, before the order of winding up arises in this case. The facts necessary for disposal of this case are as follows:-

2. The Board of Directors of M/s. BST Ltd. (the Company in liquidation) made a reference dated 19.11.2003 to the Board of Industrial Finance and Reconstruction ("BIFR" for short) under S.15 of the SICA, which was received by the BIFR on 21.11.2003. The BIFR issued notices to all the secured creditors of the company including the 4th respondent Indian Bank, in that reference. The BIFR, after hearing the secured creditors, including the 4th respondent, by order dated 29.6.2005, held that the Board was satisfied that the company had become a sick industrial company and came to the prima facie conclusion that company is not likely to make its net worth exceed the accumulated losses within a reasonable time while meeting all its financial obligations. The Board felt that the company, as a result thereof, was not likely to become viable on a long term basis and hence it was just, equitable and in public interest that it be wound up. But the Board gave the promoters an opportunity to formulate a viable rehabilitation proposal and to submit the same to the Operating Agency, who was in turn directed to consider such proposal in a joint meeting of the involved agencies and to submit a report. The Board again considered the matter on 29.9.2005 on which date none of the secured creditors chose to appear before the Board. On that date the Board confirmed their prima facie opinion that it is just, equitable and in public interest to wind up the company, under S.20(1) of the SICA and directed that the opinion be forwarded to the concerned High Court. That opinion was forwarded to this Court on 13.10.2005 and was received by this Court on 19.10.2005. The same was numbered as C.P. No.23/06 and placed before the Company Judge on 2.8.2006, who ordered notice to all persons named in the appendix to the order of the BIFR which included the 4th respondent herein, who entered appearance. In the C.P., on 4.10.2007, another union of workmen of the company in liquidation filed C.A. No. 649 of 2007, for a direction to the 4th respondent herein to keep the amount of Rs.1,23,65,675/-towards dues of the workmen, out of the amount realised by selling the properties of the industrial unit of the company in liquidation in public auction under the Securitisation Act, in a separate account bearing interest pending orders in the winding up petition. When the same came up on 18.10.2007 the counsel for the 4th respondent herein, who was the 2nd respondent in the C.A., submitted that the sale has not taken place, which submission was recorded and the C.A. was adjourned by 10 days directing the Bank to file counter affidavit. No counter affidavit was filed and on 2.11.2007 this Court passed orders in the company petition directing that the company be wound up. Of course, the learned counsel for the bank now submits that that submission was made on account of a communication gap between the Bangalore office and the Cochin office of the bank, since the sale was conducted in Bangalore. I am satisfied that that could have been a mistake, because it is not disputed before me that the sale had in fact taken place on 29.6.2000. It is in the winding up proceedings another union of the workmen of the company in liquidation has filed this Company Application, seeking a direction to the 4th respondent