Review of Challenge to Section 4(b) of Industrial Act, Emphasis on NCLT Compliance

The challenge to Section 4(b) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provision) Repeal Act, 2003 was not pursued further. The interim orders were extended to enable the workmen to seek relief from the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). The judgment emphasized the significance of NCLT in reviewing violations and directions from the Supreme Court, stressing compliance with court orders and the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to Section 4(b) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provision) Repeal Act, 2003 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Interpretation of provisions of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Jurisdiction of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) under the Code. Examination of directions given by the Supreme Court in previous orders. Allegations of violation of court orders by respondent No. 3-company. Consideration of contempt proceedings.

Issue 1: Challenge to Section 4(b) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provision) Repeal Act, 2003
The J.K. Jute Mills Mazdoor Ekta Union challenged Section 4(b) of the Act under Article 226 of the Constitution, alleging that the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 did not provide an effective remedy to implement directions of the Supreme Court. The petition sought appropriate orders from the Union of India and appointment of a court Receiver.

Issue 2: Interpretation of provisions of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016
The counsels for both parties agreed on the operational creditor status of the workmen of M/s J.K. Jute Mills under the Code. They acknowledged the entitlement of workmen to invoke NCLT's jurisdiction under relevant sections of the Code.

Issue 3: Jurisdiction of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) under the Code
The consensus was reached on the scope and power of NCLT under the Code. It was agreed that NCLT could examine directions issued by the Supreme Court under Sections 47 and 49 of the Code without any limitation period restriction.

Issue 4: Examination of directions given by the Supreme Court in previous orders
The directions given by the Supreme Court in previous orders were deemed examinable under Sections 47 and 49 of the Code if the conditions for invoking these provisions were met. NCLT was identified as the appropriate forum to consider and undertake these directions.

Issue 5: Allegations of violation of court orders by respondent No. 3-company
Allegations of violation of court orders were made against respondent No. 3-company, with conflicting assertions from the parties involved. The matter was left open for examination by NCLT to determine any violations and their consequences.

Issue 6: Consideration of contempt proceedings
The judgment clarified that in case of violations of court orders, including the directions given in the order dated 26th May, 2017, the petitioner could file contempt proceedings. The workmen were also granted the right to raise such issues before NCLT.

In conclusion, the writ petition challenging Section 4(b) of the Act was not pressed further, and the interim orders were extended to allow the workmen to approach NCLT. The judgment highlighted the importance of NCLT's role in examining violations and directions issued by the Supreme Court, emphasizing the need for adherence to court orders and the provisions of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

---