[Cites 17, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Metalyst Forgings Limited Through Its ... vs Sanjay Ambadas Kulkarni on 12 January, 2026

2026:BHC-AUG:1067

                                      1                     wp11862.2025+

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                              BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                             WRIT PETITION NO. 11862 OF 2025

              .     AHMEDNAGAR FORGINGS LIMITED
                    (NOW METALYST FORGINGS LIMITED)
                    B-20, Five Star MIDC, Shendra,
                    Aurangabad - 431154,
                    Through its Authorised Representative   .. Petitioner

                              VERSUS

              .     DONGARE GANESH D.
                    S/O RAGHUNATH B. WAGH,
                    H. N. 2/5-11, Ramnagar,
                    Cidco, Aurangabad - 431003              .. Respondent

                                             ...
                                            AND
                                             ...

                             WRIT PETITION NO. 12729 OF 2025

              .     METALYST FORGINGS LIMITED
                    B-20, Five Star MIDC, Shendra,
                    Aurangabad - 431154,
                    Through its Authorised Representative   .. Petitioner

                              VERSUS

              .     SANJAY MAHADEO KHUNE,
                    Suler Jawalge,
                    Tq. Akkalkot,
                    Solapur, M. H. - 413216                    .. Respondent

                                             ...
                                            AND
                                             ...

                             WRIT PETITION NO. 12730 OF 2025

              .     METALYST FORGINGS LIMITED
                    B-20, Five Star MIDC, Shendra,
                    Aurangabad - 431154,
                            2                         wp11862.2025+

       Through its Authorised Representative         .. Petitioner

                   VERSUS

.      VISHAL ANANDRAO KAWTHEKAR,
       Address At: N-7, Ayodhyanagar,
       F-20/100, Aurangabad - 431003                  .. Respondent

                                  ...
                                 AND
                                  ...

                 WRIT PETITION NO. 12731 OF 2025

.      METALYST FORGINGS LIMITED
       B-20, Five Star MIDC, Shendra,
       Aurangabad - 431154,
       Through its Authorised Representative         .. Petitioner



                   VERSUS

.      SANJAY AMBADAS KULKARNI,
       Garkheda Parisar,
       Aurangabad - 43100                             .. Respondent

                                    ...
     Advocate for the Petitioner/s: Mr. P. R. Katneshwarkar, Senior
         Advocate a/w. Mr. Puneet Bindra, Mr. A. D. Kulkarni,
         Mr. Prathmesh Kundalwadikar, Ms. Chaitali Seth i/b.
                           Mr. Amit Yadkikar
           Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. B. R. Kawre
                                    ...

                         CORAM            : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.

                         Reserved on      : 16.12.2025
                         Pronounced on    : 12.01.2026

Judgment:

1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With consent of the

parties heard finally.

3 wp11862.2025+

2. All the Writ Petitions involve identical facts and issues.

As such, they are taken up together.

3. In Writ Petition No.12730 of 2025, the petitioner

challenges the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal,

Aurangabad in Compliant (IT) No.1 of 2019 in Reference (I.T.) No.8

of 2017, in complaint filed under Section 33-A of The Industrial

Disputes Act (for brevity "the Act") seeking a declaration that the

petitioner / company has contravened the provisions of Section

33(2)(b) of the Act and having committed an offence, be punished

with imprisonment for six months along with penalty or

compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- and also for quashing and setting

aside dismissal order dated 15.04.2019 with direction to the

petitioner / company to reinstate the respondent / employee with

continuity of service and full back wages.

4. The facts are primarily taken up from Writ Petition

No.12730/2025, as under:

According to the complainant, the petitioner / company

is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act. It is a

Scheduled Engineering Industry engaged in the business of

manufacturing of forged Industrial Automobile Components and

the Manager appointed and authorized by the respondent has

supervision and control over the activities of the complainant. The 4 wp11862.2025+

complainant is a permanent workman since 02.11.2018 and his

last drawn wages are Rs.22,500/- per month. The complainant is a

active member of the Ahmednagar Forging Kamgar Sanghtana (for

brevity "the Trade Union"). There was wage settlement between

the Trade Union and the Management of the respondent in the year

2013, which expired in 2016. The respondent delayed the further

wage agreement so the Trade Union raised dispute, which was

referred for adjudication to the Tribunal vide Reference IT No.8 of

2017.

The respondent defaulted in repaying loan of the

bankers / lenders. So bankers / lenders initiated proceedings under

the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) as per

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 before the N.C.L.T. A

resolution professional was appointed. But during the pendency of

the resolution process and industrial dispute, local management

acted in a malicious and revengeful manner against the

complainant. Even arbitrary action was taken against the active

members of the Trade Union. Thus, a show cause notice was issued

on 18.09.2018 with a view to victimize the complainant.

Complainant replied on 08.10.2018 but without considering it,

charge-sheet was issued on 10.10.2018 alleging false and fabricated

charges of sleeping on duty. The respondent threatened to 5 wp11862.2025+

terminate the services of the complainant, unless he resigned from

the membership.

One Mr. V. D. Kulkarni was appointed as Enquiry

Officer. Even application to appoint defence representative was

rejected, but in view of the order of the Industrial Tribunal, the

complainant was allowed to appoint defence representative. The

enquiry was conducted without following principles of natural

justice and dismissed the employee without compliance of

mandatory provision of Section 33 of the Act.

Thus the dismissal dated 15.04.2019 is in utter

violation of mandatory provisions, which is challenged before the

Industrial Tribunal. No approval was sought under Section 33(2)

(b) of the Act, so the de jure relationship is still continuing and

protection granted to the workmen cannot be taken away by the

respondent.

It is stated that the order of the dismissal is ineffective

and the complainant is entitled for reinstatement with continuity

and backwages.

The respondent / employee defended the complaint on

various grounds.

5. For the purpose of this proceedings, arguments on

merits of complainant are not required to be dealt with as the order 6 wp11862.2025+

of the tribunal is specifically challenged on one ground i.e. the new

management which is the Successful Resolution Applicant has

received the entire company on a clean slate and that they are not

bound to reinstate the employee and pay any wages to them. As

there is no specific provision made for the same in the approved

resolution plan.

6. The contention of the petitioner primarily is that they

have received the company on a clean slate and that there can be

no claim made by the complainant against the SRA (Successful

Resolution Applicant).

7. Considering the above submissions, the arguments of

the petitioner is restricted to the points raised by the petitioner

and the facts necessary to decide the issue are noted below.

8. On 16.02.2017, the petition under Section 7 of the IBC

being C.P (IB)/1555/MB/2017 titled "State Bank of India vs.

Metalyst Forgings Ltd." came to be filed against Metalyst Forgings

Ltd. Before the Ld. NCLT, Mumbai Bench. On 15.12.2017, the above

petitioner under Section 7 of the IBC came to be admitted by the

learned NCLT and consequentially the CIRP of Metalyst Forgings

Ltd. commenced. Vide the Admission Order, the learned NCLT was

pleased to appoint one Mr. Dinkar T. Venkatasubramnian as the 7 wp11862.2025+

Resolution Professional whereafter the entire management of

Metalyst Forgings Ltd. stood vested in him. The learned NCLT also

declared a moratorium in terms of Section 14 of the Code

whereafter institution or continuation of all pending proceedings

against Metalyst Forgings Ltd. were prohibited. On 23.12.2017, the

Resolution Professional made a public announcement in the Indian

Express, Jansatta, Loksatta and Himachal Times thereby calling

uon the creditors of Metalyst Forgings Ltd. to submit their claim

with proof on or before 03.01.2018 to him. On 12.01.2018, the first

meeting of the CoC was convened by the Resolution Professional.

On 22.01.2018, the Resolution Professional published an

advertisement in the Economic Times inviting Expression of

Interest from prospective resolution applicants to submit their

resolution plans for the resolution of Metalyst Forgings Ltd. On

27.06.2018, the consortium of Deccan Value Investors LP and DVI

PE (Mauritius) Ltd. ("DVI /SRA") submitted its resolution plan. On

04.07.2018, despite the moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC

having been declared and there being an express bar on the

institution or continuation of pending proceedings against Metalyst

Forgings Ltd., learned Industrial / Labour Court proceeded in the

Reference Proceedings. On 28.08.2018, the resolution plan

submitted by DVI came to be approved by the CoC. On 05.10.2018,

Judgment came to be passed by this Hon'ble High Court in the 10 8 wp11862.2025+

writ petitions whereby the Hon'ble High Court partly allowed the

writ petitions and partly allowing the said petitions and direction

that the Labour Court would not adjourn the proceedings sine die

and would post the proceedings in the first week of each month

commencing from December 2018 and the petitioner would be

obliged to tender a purshis in each of these proceedings to update

the status of the NCLT proceedings. On 14.05.2024, the resolution

plan submitted by DVI came to be approved by the learned NCLT.

Pursuant to the approval of the Resolution Plan by the learned

NCLT the management of Metalyst Forgings Ltd. came to be

transferred to the Implementation and Monitoring Committee

("IMC"). On 26.06.2024, the new board on Metalyst Forgings Ltd.

came to be formed whereafter its management came to be

transferred to the new management of SRA i.e. the Petitioner

herein. On 08.04.2025, the petitioner company filed the following

applications: (I) application dated 08.04.2025 seeking disposal of

the Reference Proceedings in view of the approval of the resolution

plan of the SRA which came to be marked as Exhibit C-101. (II)

application marked as exhibit C-102 seeking to produce the

documents necessary for the disposal of Exhibit C-101 Application.

On 23.04.2025, the respondent filed his say to the Exhibit C-101

application which came to be marked as Exhibit U-14. On

02.07.2025, impugned order passed by the learned Labour Court 9 wp11862.2025+

whereby the application Exhibit C-101 was erroneously dismissed,

and it was observed that the claim of the respondent herein for

reinstatement is tenable. Vide the impugned order, the learned

Labour Court has erroneously proceeded to adjudicate the

Reference Proceedings on merits, the same being bad in law.

9. In the above factual circumstances, the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner submits that, upon the approval of the

Resolution Plan by the learned NCLT; all claims, proceedings and

liablities of the Corporate Debtor (the Petitioner herein) beyond

the ambit of the Resolution Plan stood extinguished and the new

management / S.R.A. has taken over the Corporate Debtor on a

clean slate; free from any prior claims.

That once the Resolution plan of the S.R.A. was

approved by the learned NCLT under Section 31 of the Code, all

claims, proceedings and liabilities beyond the ambit of the

Resolution Plan stood extinguished and the Petitioner Company,

under the new management of the S.R.A. / DVI, could not have been

held liable in respect of the same.

The insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 shall

override the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in the present facts.

It is submitted that Section 238 of the IBC shall

override the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. A bare 10 wp11862.2025+

reading of Section 238 of the Code would show that the provisions

of the IBC shall have an effect notwithstanding anything

inconsistent contained in the Industrial Disputes Act.

That in terms of Section 32A of the IBC, 2016; upon

approval of the resolution plan, the liability of the new

management of the Corporate Debtor (Petitoner Company herein)

shall cease for offences and it shall not be prosecuted for offences

from the date the Resolution Plan has been approved by the

learned NCLT under Section 31 of the code.

That in the present case each of the ingredients of

Section 32A of the IBC are met i.e. (I) the respondent was

terminated by the erstwhile management of the petitioner

company vide termination letter dated 15.02.2014 i.e. prior to the

commencement of the CIRP of the petitioner company, (ii) the

resolution plan has been approved by the learned NCLT under

Section 31 of the Code vide its order dated 14.05.2024 and (iii) the

resolution plan has resulted in the change of the management and

control of the petitioner company.

In view thereof the liability of the petitioner company, if

any, for the alleged termination of the respondent has ceased, and

the petitioner company shall not be prosecuted for the alleged

offence from the date the Resolution plan has been approved by the

learned NCLT under Section 31 of the Code (i.e. 14.05.2024) which 11 wp11862.2025+

resulted in the change in the control and management of the

Corporate Debtor. The petitioner company is entitled to immunity

against all forms of prosecution including the Reference

Proceedings and the same cannot be proceeded with.

In the case of Manish Kumar Vs. Union of India and

another, 2021 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that

the IBC being a complete Code provides for the consequence of the

change in management upon the approval of a resolution plan.

Section 31(1) of the Code provides that upon the approval of a

resolution plan, it shall become binding on all the corporate debtor

and its employees, members, creditors, including the Central

Government, any State Government or any local authority to

whom a debt in respect of the payment of dues arising under any

law for the time being in force, such as authorities to whom

statutory dues are owed, guarantors and other stakeholders.

Further, upon the approval of the resolution plan, all such claims,

which were not a part of the approved resolution plan stand

extinguished, and no person is entitled to initiate or continue any

proceedings in respect of a claim, which was not part of the said

resolution plan.

12 wp11862.2025+

Allowing the continuation of the Reference Proceedings

and subjecting the petitioner company under its new management

to the reference proceedings is against the objects of the IBC.

Submissions in respect of the other three petitions filed on behalf of the Petitioner:-

10. That in addition to the present matter, the Petitioner

Company has also filed the following matters against the separate

Impugned Orders dated 21.01.2025:

{i} Metalyst Forgings Ltd. vs. Sanjay Mahadeo Khune [WP/12729/2025(Civil)], {ii} Metalyst Forgings Ltd. vs. Sanjay Ambadas Kulkarni [WP/12731/2025(Civil)], {iii} Metalyst Forgings Ltd. vs. Vishal Anandrao Kawthekar [WP/12730/2025(Civil)].

The only factual dissimilarity between the aforesaid 3

matters and WP/11862/2025 (Civil) is that the termination of the

Respondent in WP/11862/2025 (Civil) was terminated by the

erstwhile management prior to the commencement of the CIRP of

the Corporate debtor whereas the Respondents in WP/12729/2025

(Civil), WP/12731/2025 (Civil) and WP/12730/2025 (Civil) were

terminated from their services by the Resolution professional post

initiation of the CIRP of the Petitioner Company.

The clean slate principle as well as the protection under

Section 32A of the Code have been propounded/enacted to ensure 13 wp11862.2025+

that successful resolution applicants are protected from the

wrongs of the erstwhile management of the Corporate Debtor and

not disincentivized from submitting resolution plans.

11. The learned counsel for the respondents / employees

submits that the respondents / employees could not have been

terminated if Section 14(2) of the IBC had come into force and the

moratorium is in force, there could have been no challenge under

service condition even in the IBC without permission of the NCLT

tribunal.

In view of Section 17(1)(b) he submits that the power of

the management is suspended and the employee could have not

been terminated from the service. The service of the employee was

terminated on 15.04.2019 in Writ Petition No.12730 of 2025 and

the order under Section 14(2) was passed on 15.12.2017.

He submits that the industrial undertaking is an

ongoing concern and the claim of the petitioner qua the

reinstatement is maintainable and the resolution professional

ought to have been aware of the pending proceedings as he had

already applied to the High Court for stay of the proceedings and

that no financial transaction were prohibited by the court and the

professional ought to have kept the claim of the petitioner alive in

the resolution. The impugned order do not call for any interference.

14 wp11862.2025+

CONSIDERATION:-

12. The relevant clauses of the Resolution plan are

reproduced hereinbelow for ease of reference and to ascertain if

any provision is made qua the respondents / employees in the

resolution plan:

" 3.4.2 As set out above, the Resolution Applicants understand that all Employee and Workmen Dues are being regularly paid and no such dues are expected to be outstanding. Further, based on our assessment, the Liquidation Value of the Corporate Debtor will be insufficient to satisfy the claims of even the Secured Financial Creditors in full and therefore will likely be insufficient for payment of the Employee and Workmen Dues in accordance with the provisions of the Code. Accordingly, the employees and Workmen shall be paid the Liquidation Value accruing to them, i.e. NIL amounts, except in case of payment of the Workmen Liquidation Dues as set out in sub-section 3.4.1 above. As a consequence, in the present case, except for the mandatory payments of Workmen Liquidation Duex (if any) as set out in sub-section 3.4.1 above, all dues payable to employees and workmen shall be written off in full and shall be, and be deemed to be, permanently extinguished as on the NCLT Approval Date.

3.4.3 Accordingly, and in accordance with the above, any and all claims or demands made by, or liabilities or obligations owed or payable to, (including any demand for any losses or damages, or interest, back wages, voluntary retirement compensation, compensation, penal interest, liquidated damages already accrued / accruing or in connection with any third party claims, or any claims made by any person who may claims to be a creditor by way of exercise of rights under Applicable Law or equity) any present or past, direct or indirect, permanent or temporary employee and/or workman of the Corporate Debtor, whether admitted or not due or contingent, asserted or unasserted, crystalised or uncrystallised, known or unknown, secured or unsecured. disputed or undisputed, present

15 wp11862.2025+

or future, whether or not set out in the Information Memorandum, the balance sheets of the Corporate Debtor or the profit and loss account statements of the Corporate Debtor, in relation to any period prior to the Effective Date pursuant to this Resolution Plan, will be written off in full and shall be, and be deemed to be, permanently extinguished with effect from the NCLT Approval Date by virtue of the order of the NCLT approving this Resolution Plan. The Corporate Debtor or the Resolution Applicants shall at no point of time be, directly or indirectly, held responsible or liable in relation thereto.

3.7 Management and Control of the Corporate Debtor

(d) Existing Manpower of the Corporate Debtor. The Corporate Debtor shall, without any obligation, and subject to acceptable performance norms, endeavour to retain existing manpower, which was engaged by the Corporate Debtor in relation to its business. Presently, the Corporate Debtor employs 699 (Six Hundred Ninety Nine) employees and Workmen as of December 15, 2017 as per disclosure made available in the Information Memorandum spreadsheet in the Virtual Data Room to the Resolution Applicants. Employee head count can be increased or reduced based on the operational performance and growth of the Corporate Debtor. Certain members of the current management may be retained at the discretion of the Resolution Applicants for a period of 6 (six)-12 (twelve) months as consultants to ensure smooth transition of management and stabilization of operations.

4.3.1 Under this Resolution Plan, all Claims, demands, financial liabilities and obligations (including any potential claims, demands and financial liabilities) from:

(a) all adverse inquiries, investigations, notices, causes of action, suits, claims, disputes, litigation, arbitration or other judicial, regulatory or administrative proceedings against, the Corporate Debtor or the affairs of the Corporate Debtor, pending or threatened, present or future, (including without limitation, any investigation by any Governmental Authority) that have been initiated or are threatened ("Dispute") to be initiated against or by the Corporate Debtor (including 16 wp11862.2025+

those proceedings that relate to the Corporate Debtor);

and

(b) any Encumbrance or collateral (whether enforced, crystallised or proceeded with or not) over the Assets (created and/or perfected for debt availed by the Corporate Debtor or a third party) (collectively "Security") that exists by operation of Applicable Law, or in connection with any debt owed to Financial Creditors, Operational Creditors, Other Creditors or any other debt or obligation of the Corporate Debtor, or in relation to a third party (including Related Parties) whose obligations were secured by the Corporate Debtor by creation any Security in favour of another person, at any time prior to the NCLT Approval Date, shall stand automatically revoked, released, cancelled, withdrawn, dismissed and deemed null and void (as the case may be) and all Claims arising from any Dispute or Security, whether set out herein or not, whether admitted or not, asserted or unasserted, crystallised or uncrystallised, known or unknown, secured or unsecured, disputed or undisputed, present or future, whether or not set out in the Information Memorandum, the Virtual Data Room, the balance sheets of the Corporate Debtor or the profit and loss account statements of the Corporate Debtor, in relation to any period prior to the Effective Date or arising on account of this Resolution Plan, will be written off in full and shall be, and be deemed to be, permanently extinguished on the Effective Date and with effect from the NCLT Approval Date by virtue of regulatory or administrative proceedings against, the Corporate Debtor for recovery of, or in relation to, Claims in relation to any debt owed by the Corporate Debtor to such Financial Creditor.

4.6 Payments to Creditors submitting claims after approval of the Resolution Plan/persons whose claims were not accepted by the Resolution Professional The Code and the IBBI (CIRP) Regulations entitle all creditors of a corporate debtor to submit their claims to the resolution professional on or prior to the date on which the resolution plan gets approved by the COC. As a result, in the event any Creditor of the Corporate Debtor does not submit its claims to the Resolution Professional prior to the NCLT Approval Date, or fails to 17 wp11862.2025+

get the same admitted by making an application to the NCLT and in case the Resolution Professional or the COC refuses to accept the claims of such Creditor, then in such case, the said Creditor will not be entitled to receive any payments under the Resolution Plan. The unclaimed amounts which are not admitted or accepted shall stand extinguished and become NIL by virtue of the order of the NCLT approving this Resolution Plan.

4.8 ...XXX..For the avoidance of doubt, once approved by the NCLT, this Resolution Plan is binding on the Corporate Debtor, members of the Corporate Debtor, Creditors, guarantors and other stakeholders involved in the Resolution Plan, any and all claims, demands, debts and financial habilities arising on or after Insolvency Commencement Date in respect of the Corporate Debtor and until the Effective Date by virtue of the order of the NCLT approving this Resolution Plan:

(i) be permanently extinguished; and (it) deemed to have stopped accruing to the Corporate Debtor, and the Resolution Applicants and shall at no point of time be, directly or indirectly, held responsible or liable in relation thereto for any reason whatsoever."

13. The petitioner was declared as a successful resolution

applicant and the resolution plan was approved by the NCLT vide

it's order dated 14.05.2024. In the resolution plan, provision is not

made qua the claim of the respondents / employees.

14. Clause 3.7 of the resolution plan is set out above,

wherein it is observed that the existing manpower of the corporate

debtor, the corporate debtor shall without any obligation and

subject to acceptable performance norms endeavour to retain

existing manpower, which was engaged by the corporate debtor in

relation to its business. It is observed that presently the corporate 18 wp11862.2025+

debtor employs 699 employees and workmen as of 15.12.2017 as

per disclosure made available in the Information Memorandum

spreadsheet in the virtual data room to the resolution applicants. It

is stated that the respondents names are not in the list of 699

employees and they have also not filed any claims before the

resolution professional.

LAW ON THE SUBJECT:-

15. In the instant case, the application moved under section

33A of the Industrial Disputes Act was pending. During the

moratorium, the proceedings were under suspension and after

moratorium period the matters are now proceeded further. The

question before this court is, whether the proceedings could have

been continued further before the Industrial Tribunal after the

acceptance of resolution plan. However, this issue is no more in res

integra as the same is concluded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the case of Electrosteel Steel Limited (Now M/S Esl Steel Limited

vs. Ispat Carrier Private Limited, Civil Appeal No.2896 of 2024,

dated 21.04.2025, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court by relying

upon the earlier Judgments at paragraphs no.50, 50.1,51.52 has

held that it is now well settled that once resolution plan is duly

approved by the adjudicating authority under Sub-section 1 of

Section 31 all claims which are not part of the resolution plan

19 wp11862.2025+

shall stand extinguished and no person will be entitled to initiate or

continue any proceedings in respect of the claim which is not a part

of the resolution plan. In the case of Essar Steel India Ltd.

Committee of Creditors Vs. Satish Kumar Gupta, (2020) 8 SCC 531 ,

the Hon'ble Supreme Court had categorically declared that a

successful resolution applicant cannot be faced with undecided

claims after the resolution plan is accepted. Otherwise this would

amount to a hydra head popping up which would throw into

uncertainty the amount payable by the resolution applicant. It has

been further observed that the lifting of the moratorium does not

mean that the claim of the respondent would stand revived

notwithstanding approval of the resolution plan by the

adjudicating authority. Moratorium is intended to ensure that no

further demands are raised or adjudicated upon during the

corporate insolvency resolution process so that the process can be

proceeded with and concluded without further complications.

CONCLUSION:-

16. Considering the law as declared by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court and also considering the relevant clauses of the resolution

plan, there is no scope left for payment of any dues by the

petitioner / company and the petitions will have to be necessarily

20 wp11862.2025+

allowed. In view of the resolution plan, as approved, the claim of

the respondents would automatically stood extinguished.

17. It is argued by the respondents / employees that since

their claims are yet to be adjudicated upon, no claim could have

been raised before the resolution professional, in view of the

Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Electrosteel

Steel Limited (Now M/S Esl Steel Limited vs. Ispat Carrier Private

Limited, the Judgment of the Orissa High Court in the case of M/s.

Ferro Alloys Corp. Ltd., Bhadrak Vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour

Court, Bhubaneswar and another, dated 29.08.2023, cannot be

relied upon.