CEMENT WORKERS KARAMCHARI SANGH versus M/S. JAIPUR UDYOG LIMITED AND ORS.

Citation: [2008] 5 S.C.R. 276 · Decided: 24-03-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. THAKKER · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 5 S.C.R. 276 
A 
CEMENT WORKERS KARAMCHARI SANGH 
v. 
M/S. JAIPUR UDYOG LIMITED AND ORS. 
· (Civil Appeal No. 2076 of 2008) 
B 
MARCH 24, 2008 
[C.K. THAKKER AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.] 
' 
-+ 
Principles of natural justice: Adjournment - Refusal to 
grant - Mistake in recording interim order by High Court -
c According to counsel, apart from staying operation of the 
interim order coming under challenge before it, High Court 
stayed further proceedings before AA/FR - AA/FR observed 
from the copy of the High Court order produced before it that 
what was stayed was not proceedings in appeal but operation 
D of interim order-Adjournment requested by counsel objected 
to by the other side and consequently - Declined by AA/FR -
AA/FR proceeded with the hearing of appeal and disposed of 
.., . " 
the appeal - High Court strongly expressed displeasure over 
fact that AA/FR proceeded with hearing of appeal without giving 
E 
opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner - Held: AA/FR did 
not err in disallowing prayer for adjournment - Counsel 
declined to make submissions even though repeatedly asked 
by AA/FR - Strong displeasure expressed by High Court was 
uncalled for - There was no breach of principles of natural 
;ustice. 
F 
Dues of workmen central to the issue of rehabilitation or 
winding up of a company- Sick Industrial Companies (Special 
Provisions) Act - s. 20 - Delay in disposal of appeal against 
winding up order causes great prejudice to creditors and deep 
G distress to the workmen - But in the facts of the case, Held: 
Justice should not only be1 done but also seen to be done -
The sick company should be afforded one chance to place 
their case before AA/FR - Directions passed - Delay and 
:latches. 
I 
H 
I 
276 
CEMENT WORKERS KARAMCHARI $ANGH v. M/S. 
277 
JAIPUR UDYOG LIMITED AND ORS. 
-+ 
In 1987, respondent no.1 company was declared A 
sick. GDCL made proposal for revival of the company, 
which was sanctioned by BIFR. In order to make revival 
possible, employees made sacrifices and settled for much 
smaller amount of Rs.3 crores in place of 12 crores being 
their lawful dues, giving 314th of their dues in hope that B 
• 
new promoter (GDCL) would give them jobs. These hopes 
i 
were, however, belied. GDCL commissioned the unit but 
declared a lock out after 7 months. BIFR reviewed the 
matter and finally ordered winding up. JUL filed appeal 
before AAIFR. 
c 
On August 3, 2001, the AAIFR directed JUL to deposit 
an amount of Rs.10 crores as the condition precedent for 
admission of the appeal. JUL challenged this interim order 
by filing writ petition. In the writ petition, High Court issued 
notice of stay. On September 6, 2001, a prayer was made D 
y 
on behalf of JUL before AAIFR for adjournment on the 
.,, ' 
plea that further proceedings in the appeal were stayed 
by the High Court. The prayer was strongly opposed by 
the counsel representing the State Bank of India and the 
other parties. The AAIFR observed that from the copy of E 
the High Court order, it was evident that what was stayed 
was not the proceedings in the appeal but the operation 
of the order dated August 3, 2001 and commented that 
even that order was passed with the consent of the parties. 
The AAIFR proceeded to hear the counsel for the State 
F 
Bank of India and then adjourned the hearing to be taken 
up after lunch when submissions might be made on behalf 
of JUL. In the post lunch session, a lawyer's certificate 
was produced stating that apart from staying operation 
of the order dated August 3, 2001, the High Court had in G 
fact stayed further proceedings before the AAIFR. The 
AAIFR did not accept the certificate and asked the counsel· 
to make submissions. The counsel declined and in these 
-1-
circumstances the AAIFR proceeded to dispose of the 
appeal on merits. JUL then filed application in writ petition H 
278 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 5 S.C.R. 
A bringing to notice of Higlh Court the development taking 
place in AAIFR. High Court strongly expressed its 
displeasure over the fact that the AAIFR had proceeded 
with the hearing of the appeal without giving opportunity 
of hearing to parties. Hiuh Court set aside both interim 
B order and final orders of AAIFR and remitted matter for 
fresh decision after providing opportunity of hearing. 
) 
-+ 
Appellant-workers union filed SLP before this Court. 
However during pendency of the proceedings, on August 
26, 2006 while SLP giving rise to this appeal was pendi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.