R. JAYASIMHA BABU, J.:

1. The workmen, about 1500 in number, employed by third respondent, Dhanalakshmi Mills Limited, which owned two units, ‘A’ and ‘B’, ‘A’ mill being a spinning mill and ‘B’ mill being a weaving mill, have not been able to get any relief so far despite the order made by the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction on 3.4.1998, directing sale of the lands owned by the sick company, the lands being valuable lands whose value based on the average of the estimated market value and guideline value is Rs.2 crores per acres with a further direction that the money realised from such sale be applied to pay the wages and statutory dues as also the secured creditors. The closure of the ‘B’ Mill was permitted by an order of the Special Industrial Tribunal way back in the year 1994 with a further direction that the employees who were working in that mill be given employment in the ‘A’ Mill.

1A. The effective denial of relief till date to the workmen for the last five years is on account of the legal proceedings initiated by a person who was neither a creditor nor a shareholder nor connected with the company in any way, and had only made an o