2004 (2) TMI 391

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ions is to the scheme for revival of the company to be examined by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR). Admittedly, the company had invoked the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 and it was referred to the BIFR in the year, 1992. With the Central Government approval, certain steps were taken as part of the revival package. The approval of BIFR is still awaited. These writ petitions essentially seek to challenge the mode adopted for proceeding with the scheme before the BIFR. 3. Earlier, the claim was sought to be challenged in WP (PIL) No. 4946 of 2003. This Court by judgment dated 30-1-2004, dismissed the writ petition. After referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in Balco Employees U....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ading that such notice ought not to have been given. Their further plea is that some of the employees who were transferred to Baroda and NOIDA Units, even after transfer, have been permitted to continue and complete certain works at Sindri and this clearly indicates that all was not well with the implementation of the scheme. 6. The counter-affidavits give details of the circumstances under which the company had gone before BIFR and also clearly setting out that the whole exercise for identifying the surplus staff has been done by a duly constituted high power committee at Unit level and their recommenda-tions have been submitted for approval of a Corporate Level Committee and finally to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the company. I....