TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (5) TMI 344
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s have prayed for appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the judgments and orders passed by Industrial Court, Ahmedabad in Appeal Nos. 52 to 73 of 2002 at Annexure 'E' in the compilation and a further prayer is made to direct respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to reinstate the petitioners with full back wages, continuity of service and other consequential reliefs. 3. It appears from the record that respondent No. 1-Mill was declared as sick unit by the Board of Industrial Finance & Reconstruction, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'BIFR' for short) and as per the provisions of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'SICA' for short), a scheme was sanctioned for the revival o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to the interest of the workmen. It also appears from the record that in spite of the objections lodged before the BIFR, the objections were not considered by the BIFR and the scheme for amalgamation of the respondent No. 1-Mill with the respondent No. 2-Mill was sanctioned with a provision of retrenchment of 659 permanent workmen and 301 badli workmen of the respondent No. 1-Mill. It appears that some of the workmen of the respondent No. 1-Mill had also represented to the respondent No. 3-Union that the course adopted by the Union was contrary to the interest of the workmen and for entering the agreement dated 4-11-1995 and other similar issues. It appears that being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the scheme sanctioned by the BIFR providing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d under section 22 of SICA will not be required since respondent No. 1-Mill has already been amalgamated with respondent No. 2-Mill. She submitted that retrenchment of the petitioners workmen was contrary to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and also the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946. She further submitted that the action of the BIFR is in breach of the principles of natural justice since the BIFR has provided for retrenchment of the petitioners workmen without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard. It is, therefore, requested to allow the present petition. 5. In response to the notice of rule, Mr. Manish Bhatt appears for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and affidavit-in-reply is filed on behalf of respondent Nos. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0-1996. It is further submitted that the scheme sanctioned by the BIFR, has by and large, been implemented. It is further submitted that in Para 8 of the order, the AAIFR observed that the rehabilitation scheme sanctioned by the BIFR was evolved after considerable efforts and deliberations and this had enabled the sick company-respondent No. 1 to be rehabilitated from the route of merger which had enabled the continued employment of about 500 workers and rightly the AAIFR has dismissed the appeal. It is further submitted that respondent No. 3 is a recognized Union as per the BIR Act and has acted for the benefit and in the interest of the workers at large. It is further submitted that the settlement so arrived at is in the larger interest o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ched, out of which majority of the workmen had already been paid compensation as provided for in the sanctioned scheme and only about 71 workmen had not responded even though the company had already sent the compensation cheque as early as on 31-10-1996. It is required to be noted that the BIFR or AAIFR are the expert bodies under the SICA, and therefore, the conclusion of an expert body should not be lightly tinkered with by a Court of law without giving due weightage to the conclusion arrived at by such expert body and that there is no procedural irregularity in the decision-making process by the BIFR or AAIFR, and since, the scheme has worked to the satisfaction of the secured, unsecured, statutory creditors and even the workmen, I do no....