Natural justice and conditional remand: refusal to adjourn was not a hearing denial, but workmen's dues required separate determination.

Refusal to adjourn did not amount to a denial of natural justice where the record did not clearly show any subsisting stay, the adjournment request was opposed, and counsel was called on to argue on merits but made no submissions; the High Court therefore erred in setting aside the appellate order on that ground. At the same time, prolonged pendency and unresolved claims concerning revival, winding up, and workmen's dues justified a limited remand to the Appellate Authority subject to deposit, with the lawful dues of the workers to be determined separately by arbitration so that further proceedings could proceed on a proper factual basis.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the final order of the Appellate Authority on the ground of breach of natural justice. (ii) Whether, in the circumstances of the case, the matter should be remitted for fresh consideration and the workers' dues separately determined.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the final order of the Appellate Authority on the ground of breach of natural justice.

Analysis: The record showed that the alleged stay of further proceedings before the Appellate Authority was not clearly reflected in the order produced before it. The request for adjournment was opposed by other parties, and when the appellant's counsel was called upon to argue on merits, no submissions were made. In those circumstances, refusal to adjourn did not amount to denial of a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and the High Court erred in treating the final order as vitiated for breach of audi alteram partem.

Conclusion: The final order of the Appellate Authority was not liable to be set aside on the ground of violation of natural justice.

Issue (ii): Whether, in the circumstances of the case, the matter should be remitted for fresh consideration and the workers' dues separately determined.

Analysis: The prolonged pendency, the conflicting claims regarding revival and winding up, and the unresolved controversy regarding the workmen's dues justified a limited remand so that the appeal could be restored subject to deposit and the rival claims could be examined on a proper record. The Court also considered it necessary that the lawful dues of the workmen be authoritatively determined by a retired judge acting as arbitrator under the Industrial Disputes Act, so that any realistic revival scheme or winding-up process could proceed on a sound factual basis.

Conclusion: The matter was remitted to the Appellate Authority subject to deposit of Rs. 10 crores, and the lawful dues of the workmen were directed to be determined separately by arbitration.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's interference was not sustained on the ground of natural justice, but the dispute was restored to the Appellate Authority on conditions while an independent determination of workmen's dues was ordered to facilitate further proceedings in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A refusal to adjourn does not amount to breach of natural justice where no hearing is in fact denied and the party declines to argue, and where the controversy cannot be fairly resolved without determining workers' dues, a conditional remand and independent adjudication of those dues may be ordered in the interests of justice.

---