The main legal point established in the judgment is the limitation on compensation payable to terminated workmen due to the closure of the undertaking, and the voidance of the Industrial Tribunal award for non-compliance with the Companies Act.

ORDER :

Raman Nayar, J.—Two common questions arise in these applications brought by 49 "workmen" and the legal representative of a deceased workman of the company in liquidation under Sections 460(6) of the Companies Act, 1956 read with Rule 155 of the Travancore-Cochin Company Rules against the partial rejection of their proofs by the Official Liquidator. The first is, whether the compensation payable to these workmen on the termination of their services is to be determined under Sections 25F(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, free of the limitation imposed by the proviso to Sections 25FFF(1) as claimed by them, or whether it is subject to that limitation as held by the liquidator. The second is, whether the award made by the Industrial Tribunal, Alleppey on 5-8-1957 on a reference under Sections 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act (and published under Sections 17, in the Gazette dated 27-8-1957) of a dispute between the company and those of its workmen as come under the category, "staff members", is void for the reason that no leave of this court was takers under Sections 446 of the Companies Act for the continuanee of the proceedings after the winding up order and the liquidator is therefore entitled to ignore that award.

2. The business of the company was the manufacture and sale of coir and coir products. In 3953, 1954 and 1955 it suffered heavy loss owing, it is said, to adverse trade conditions, the loss in 1952 being phenomenal and amounting to halt its 'paid up capital. In June 1955, the Board of Directors of the company decided that the company should go into voluntary liquidation and resolved that necessary steps be taken for the purpose. A general meeting was called for the purpose, but owing to certain supervening complications including a court injunction, the meeting could not be held and winding up was eventually ordered by this court on 24-7-1957 on a petition presented by a contributory on 19-12-1956. Meanwhile, ort 24-12-1956, the official liquidator had been appointed provisional liquidator, and he took charge of the company on 3-1-57 and continued in charge of it as provisional liquidator until, on the winding up being ordered, he became the liquidator.

Even before the provisional liquidator took charge, the company had, with a view, to closing down, dispensed with the services of the bulk of its workmen on payment of compensation as on closure of business. When the provisional liquidator took charge, he found that there were some accepted orders pending execution with the company as also unfinished goods and raw materials. He thought it would be beneficial to continue the working of the company for the limited purpose of executing the pending orders retaining only the workmen necessary for the purpose and discharging the rest. After obtaining orders of court, he terminated the services of 23 workmen on 17-1-1959, retaining only 17 for the purpose of executing the pending orders. On 11-6-1957, when the pending orders were nearing completion, lie dispensed with the services of 6 more workmen, and the services of the remaining 11 he terminated on 24-7-1957, on the passing of the winding up order.

3. The dispute leading to the reference under Sections 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act related, among other things, to annual increments which the management had refused since 1952 and to strike wages. The reference was first made to the Indus- trial Tribunal, Trivandmm in October 1954 and, on the constitution of the Industrial Tribunal Al-leppey, to that Tribunal in June 1956. Soon after the appointment of the provisional liquidator, the Staff Association representing the workmen filed two petitions before the Tribunal, one to implead the provisional liquidator as a party to the dispute and the other to take action against him for having dispensed with the services of some of the workmen without the permission of the Tribunal.

On receiving notice of these petitions the provisional liquidator moved this court, and