LexSHIVANAND GAURISHANKAR BASWANTI versus LAXMI VISHNU TEXTILE MILLS & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A 8 [2008] 10 S.C.R. 782 ::-.iHt 1/ANAND GAURISHANKAR BASWANTI II. LAXMI VISHNU TEXTILE MILLS & ORS. (Civ.il Appeal No. 4324 of 2008) JULY 11, 2008 [C.K. THAKKER AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] Constitution .of India, 1950: ··Articles 136 and 226 - Company declared sick under C the sick lndius Oriat Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1.985 ·(SICA) - Bi FR opining for winding up of the Company - Offer for pwchase of property of ·the Company - In joint meetings .. . between the sick company, proposed purchaser, secured and unsecured creditors and the Representative Union of work- D men, agreement by the creditors -an.d workers to accept lesser amount of the dues as one time settlement- PIL by one of the workers . challenging the. agreement, disposed of with direc- tion to ?pproach appropriate forum - Subsequent writ petition ·by the worker challenging the settlement dismissed as not E maintainable - On appeal, . held: The appellant has no locus standi to address the grievance - All the workers were bound by the decision taken by the Representative Union - Indus- trial employee has no right to represent the workmen - The grievance should have been addressed before appropriate F forum and not under Article 226 of the Constitution - In the facts of the case the course taken for se_ttlement was appropri- ate and was not contrary to law - Decision taken by the Union does not suffer from any infirmity - Hence, in view of the facts of the case, interference under Article 136 not called for - G Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1947 - ss. 14, 27A and 30. Article 136 - Discretionary jurisdiction - Scope of - Held: Discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 has to be tampered with equity - The Court to .exercise the jurisdiction only if ex- traordinary flaws or grave injustice or other recognized grounds, H 782 ' , SHIVANAND GAURISHANKAR BASWANTI v. LAXMI 783 ... -+ VISHNU TEXTILES MILLS & ORS . are made out - Court not to act as a regular court of appeal. A Respondent No. 1-Company, incurred heavy losses and was closed down. Proceedings had been initiated un- der SICA. BIFR initially had restrained the management from disposing or transferring the assets without its prior B permission, but finally it recommended winding up of the Company. In favour of one of the major creditors (State Bank of India) Debts Recovery Tribunal (ORT) passed a decree for Rs. 84.39 crores with interest. Controlling Au- thority under Payment of Gratuity Act passed orders in favour of the workers directing ·the respondent-Company c to pay the gratuity with interest. Since the respondent- Company was not in a position to pay the entire dues, ORT ordered to take steps to hold a joint meeting of all the financial institutions an~ representatives of workers in order to settle the matter. In the meantime, respondent D No. 7 expressed its willingness to purchase the property for Rs. 46.65 crores .. A tripartite agreement had been ar- rived at between the respondent-Company, respondent No.8-representative Union of workers and respondent No. 7 purchaser. As the property owned by the respondent- E Company was not enough to meet all the liabilities, work- ers Union agreed to accept an amount of Rs. 22.21 crores towards full and final settlement as against the claim of Rs. 132 crores. In a subsequent joint meeting of secured -y and unsecured creditors, it was agreed that they would F share the sale proceeds of Rs. 46.65 crores by One Time Settlement foregoing their claim for the entire amount. In- cidentally property was sold to respondent No. 7. Appellant (a workman) on coming to know about the agreements, submitted a representation to High Court <S which was treated as Public Interest Litigation. Ultimately ... the same was disposed of observing that the grievance ~ could not be adjudicated under PIL and the same could be pursued before appropriate forum. H 784 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R. +- .. A Appellant thereafter filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. High Court summarily dismissed the petition holding that it was not a fit case to entertain the petition in exercise of jurisdiction under Ar- ticle 226. Hence the present appeals. '\ B Dismissing the appeal, the Court y HELD: 1.1 This is not a fit case for exercise of discre- tionary and equi~ble jurisdiction under Article 136 of th'e Constitution. This Court is not expected to act as 'regul
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.