Specialised rehabilitation scheme under sick company law limits judicial interference absent procedural illegality or constitutional violation.

Petitions challenging Labour Court and Industrial Court orders were treated as not maintainable in light of a sanctioned and substantially implemented rehabilitation scheme under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. The article notes that the company had been declared sick, the revival scheme contemplated amalgamation and retrenchment, and the scheme had been implemented after consideration by BIFR and AAIFR. Because those bodies are specialised statutory authorities, their technical and policy determinations were accorded due weight. In the absence of procedural irregularity, constitutional infirmity, or abuse of power, judicial interference was declined and the orders below were left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitions challenging the orders of the Labour Court and Industrial Court were maintainable in view of the sanctioned and implemented rehabilitation scheme under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, and whether the Court should interfere with the expert determination of the BIFR and AAIFR.

Analysis: The respondent company had been declared a sick industrial company and a revival scheme had been sanctioned under the statutory framework governing sick industrial companies. The scheme contemplated amalgamation and retrenchment, and it was implemented after consideration by the expert authorities. The Court held that BIFR and AAIFR are specialised bodies under the statute and their conclusions are entitled to due weight. In the absence of any demonstrated procedural irregularity, constitutional infirmity, or abuse of power, the Court declined to reappreciate the technical and policy choices made in the rehabilitation process. The Court also noted that the scheme had been substantially implemented and the company had been discharged from the purview of BIFR.

Conclusion: The challenge was rejected. The petitions were not maintainable on the facts and the orders below were not interfered with.

Final Conclusion: Judicial interference was declined in light of the sanctioned and implemented revival scheme under the special statute, and the dismissal of the petitions was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Courts will not lightly interfere with the decision of specialised statutory bodies under a rehabilitation regime where the scheme has been sanctioned and implemented and no procedural illegality or constitutional violation is shown.

---