TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (11) TMI 350
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent, on July 31, 2001, or not. It is significant to note that this writ petition was filed on April 2, 2003. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that the case after being registered with the BIFR proceeded accordingly. A prima facie view was taken by the BIFR that the unit is not viable and the company would have to be wound up. Notice was also directed to be served upon the company to show cause as to why the winding up order should not be approved. However, an appeal was preferred from such order to the Appellate Authority, i.e., the AAIFR and the appeal was disposed of upon sanctioning a scheme of revival or rehabilitation in favour of the petitioner-company. Various modes were introduced thereunder for the purpose of payment to work....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in who are getting their wages month-wise. 4. According to me, a proceeding before the BIFR is to be proceeded under the relevant provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (commonly known as 'the SICA'). From there, I find that right from the registration of a proceeding before such Board various stages are there for the purpose of coming to an appropriate conclusion about the viability of the industry. Under section 22 therein, a provision has been laid down for the purpose of suspension of legal proceedings, contracts, etc. All stages are given herein, i.e. , (a) state of enquiry under section 16; (b) preparation and consideration of scheme referred to under section 17; or (c) implementation of the sancti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s suspended pursuant to enquiry about the company under section 16 of the SICA. In any event, now the award was passed on November 7, 2000, which was published on July 31, 2001. It is now well-settled that there cannot be any embargo in proceeding with the matter but a coercive action may not be taken during the pendency of the matter before the BIFR ( see Burn Standard Co. Ltd., In re [1997] 2 CHN 148). Hence, the Tribunal cannot be precluded from taking up the matter. However, the Tribunal delivered a judgment and passed an award on the aforesaid date and accordingly the same was published. Award was passed on November 7, 2000, when the proceeding before the BIFR has been initiated in the year 1987. Therefore, the same was passed after ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o be fixed only when the case is ripped up to the stage of consideration of the scheme under section 18. It will be absurd to think that in spite of having a formal approval for taking up the matter by the BIFR one should sleep over the matter and wait for consideration of the scheme being forgetful about statutory liabilities or wages of the workmen, etc., indefinitely. Such submission is totally contrary to fundamental right and the principles of natural justice. 5. The other part of consideration is that the AAIFR before referring back the matter to the BIFR granted leave for mutual settlement between workers and management. Therefore, when a pre-existing industrial dispute was there before the Tribunal due to failure of settlement and ....