M/S Modi Tyre Karamchari Union vs Appellate Authority Of ...
2009 Latest Caselaw 5046 Del

*	IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  DELHI  AT  NEW  DELHI



%			                        Judgment delivered on: 07.12.2009





+ 	W.P.(C) No. 8546/2009



M/S MODI TYRE KARAMCHARI UNION                          ..... Petitioner





				-versus-





APPELLATE AUTHORITY OF INDUSTRIAL AND FINANCIAL RECONSTRUCTION 				                        ..... Respondent

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner : Mr Krishnendu Datta with Mr Ashish Verma, Advocates

For the Respondent : Mr Ajay K. Jain, Advocate for respondent no. 2

Mr Atul Kumar, Advocate for respondent no. 3

CORAM:-

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to

see the judgment? No

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? No

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. This writ petition has been filed apparently on behalf of about 120 workmen of Modi Rubber Limited. According to the learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 - Company, even out of these 120 workmen, about a 100 workmen have already signed and settled their dues with the Company and it is only about 20 workmen who are left agitating the present writ petition.

2. This submission is, however, denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner who states that all the 120 workmen are agitating.

3. Anyhow, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction on 11.02.2009 whereby scheme SS-08 sanctioned by the BIFR had been approved with modifications. One of the modifications that was made was in respect of paragraphs 7.39(i) of the said scheme. Paragraphs 17, 18 and 19 clearly bring out the scope of the said order. The same are reproduced hereunder:-

"17. In the afore stated context, we hold that the appeal filed by company succeeds while the appeal filed by the workmen fails. We are of the view that uniformity has to be brought in with respect to the dispensation provided to the workmen under the Sanctioned Scheme. In order to bring about uniformity and remove the ambiguity, the impugned directions contained at para 7.38.1 and 7.39(i) need to be modified in terms of Section 25(2) of SICA. The directions at para 7.38.1 of the impugned order are modified as under:

"the terms of settlement of the dues of the remaining workmen should not be inferior to the terms offered for settlement of the dues of the 1100 workmen in terms of MoU(07)"

18. The impugned direction in para 7.39(i) is modified as under:

"the company should settle the dues of the remaining workers also ensuring that the settlement norms apply uniformly to all the workers and that the settlements with the workers are not inferior to the terms offered to the 1100 workmen in terms of MoU(07)."

19. If some workmen are unwilling to accept the settlement of dues in terms of the MoU 07, they must obtain an appropriate order from the competent judicial forum and thereafter seek modifications to the Sanctioned Scheme u/s 18(5) of SICA before BIFR."

4. From a plain reading of the aforesaid portion of the impugned order, we are of the clear view that the interest of the petitioner has been adequately protected by the AAIFR, particularly, in view of what has been said in paragraph 19 thereof. We see no reason to interfere with the said order.

The writ petition stands disposed of.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

VEENA BIRBAL, J

DECEMBER 07, 2009

kks