The provisions of Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, do not impose liability on a third party, like RIICO, to pay the dues of the workmen of a defaulting company.

BY THE COURT:

1. These cases as per Schedule annexed, are being disposed of by this common order. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner-Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation ('RIICO' for short), against the order of learned Labour Court, Bhilwara, passed under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, ('Act of 1947' for short) dated 14.06.2012.

2. The brief facts, leading to filing of the present writ petitions by RIICO are like this.

3. A limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, known as Rajasthan Processors Engineering Ltd., Ajmer Road, Bhilwara (Employer/company), was the employer of the respondents/workmen. The said Employer/company, however, defaulted in repayment of the loans to the present petitioner-RIICO and in exercise of its statutory powers under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (Act of 1951), the petitioner RIICO, took over the assets mortgaged with it and sold the same to one M/s Kanchan (India) Pvt. Ltd. in the year 2007. The sale proceeds of the assets to the extent of approximately Rs.2.51 crores, still fell short of the outstanding dues of the petitioner-RIICO and co-financial company, viz. Rajasthan Financial Corporation (RFC) against the defaulter, RPL (I) Ltd., Bhilwara.

4. The respondents/workmen, approached the learned Labour Court for payment of their dues of salary and wages, which was not paid to them, for the year 2000 when the said company was running and by the impugned order the Labour Court, Bhilwara, such dues have been determined by the Labour Court in the case of individual workmen by the impugned order and which total up to Rs.14.90 lacs approx. The petitioner-RIICO was also impleaded as a party-respondent before the learned Labour Court along-with defaulter company RPL (I) Ltd., who remained exparte and did not defend or refute the said claim of the respondents/workmen under Section 33-C (2) of the Act of 1947; and the petitioner RIICO denied the said claim, inter-alia, on the ground that RIICO was not the 'Employer' of the workmen and secondly, the RIICO was not liable to pay the said dues of workmen under Section 33-C (2) of the Act of 1947 as they were never a party to the Tripartite settlement of due salary and wages to the workmen. The said settlement dated 29.11.2000 was relied upon by the learned Labour Court for determining the said dues in favour of workmen. The three parties of the said settlement between the workmen were, (1) workmen through their Union, (2) Employer-Company RPL (I) Ltd. and (3) Deputy Labour Commissioner, and the present petitioner-RIICO was not a party to the said settlement/agreement at all.

5. By the impugned order dated 14.06.2012, the learned Labour Court, however, has held that dues of the workmen determined under Section 33-C (2) of the Act of 1947, are liable to be paid by both the respondents, the company RPL (I) Lt.d an the the petitioner-RIICO and to the extent aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-RIICO, has filed the present set of writ petitions before this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

6. Elaborating the submissions before this Court, Mr. Sanjeet Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner RIICO has urged that the Trade Union representing the cause of the respondents/workmen, namely, “Mahamantri, Bhartiya Processors Shramik Sangh, Bhilwara.”, has filed a writ petition before this Court, being S.B.C.W.P. No.4791/2006-Bhartiya Processors Shramik Sangh, Bhilwara Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., including the company and the petitioner (RIICO) and in the said pending writ petition, an interim order has been passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 07.02.2007 to the effect that the petitioner-RIICO, may proceed with finalizing the sale of the unit acquired by it, however, appropriate sale proceeds interest of the workmen (Petitioners of CW No.4991/2006) may be safeguarded. The said writ petitioner represen