TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (3) TMI 860
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1985 and therefore, the respective petitioners workmen preferred T. applications before the Labour Court, Nadiad under the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act. That it appears that the respondent-company approached the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction under the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 ("the SICA Act" for short) in the year 2000. It is the case on behalf of the respective petitioners that at the relevant time, the company did not submit anything with respect to the reference before the BIFR, however, subsequently, a rehabilitation scheme came to be sanctioned by the BIFR in the year 2002 and thereafter in December, 2003, the respondent-company submitted an application before the labour court to cancel and/or suspend the proceedings in T. Application, etc., invoking provisions of section 22 of the SICA Act. That the Labour Court, Nadiad vide order dated December 18, 2003, dismissed the said application and directed to proceed further with the T. Application No. 62 of 1985 and BIFR Application No. 38 of 1988. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order dated December 18, 2003, passed by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....year 2000 and the scheme alleged to have been sanctioned in the year 2003. It is further submitted that, therefore, the bar under section 22 of the SICA would not be attracted. It is further submitted that in any case, the tribunal is not justified in staying the further proceedings and adjudication of the T. applications and other allied matters. It is further submitted that even keeping all the questions open as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, section 22 of the SICA would be applicable or not, there is no justification in staying the further adjudication of the proceedings which were initiated in the year 1985, more particularly when at the relevant time there was no reference pending before the BIFR. It is further submitted that as the scheme sanctioned by the BIFR is not on record, it is not clear as to whether in fact there is any reference to the pending proceedings and/or whether the BIFR has considered the said aspect while considering the scheme or not. 6. Mr. Raval, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respective petitioners/workmen has heavily relied upon the decisions of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Eagle Flask Industries Ltd....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....[2000] 3 GLH 409, as well as another decision of the learned single judge in the case of Morarji Desai Textile Labour Co-operative Industries Ltd. v. Thakorebhai Dhulabhai Patel [2003] 2 LLJ 129. 11. Relying upon the above decisions and making the submissions aforesaid, it is requested to dismiss the present special civil application 12. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties. 13. At the outset, it is required to be noted that all the petitioners were serving with the respondent-company and are without any employment/ job since the year 1985. As their services came to be terminated by the respondent-company, they have raised industrial disputes under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act by submitting T. applications ranging from 1985. It appears that the respondent-company approached the Board under the provisions of the SICA being Case No. 104 of 2000 for declaring it as a sick undertaking and the said case came to be finally decided on October 30, 2002, wherein the scheme has been framed for rehabilitation of the respondent-company. It appears that the T. applications of 1985 and other T. applications are still pending and the respondent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd it will be very difficult for the petitioners and their family members to survive. The bar under section 22 of the SICA would be applicable only at the time when there will be financial implication and award is sought to be implemented/executed having financial implications. In the meantime, the proceedings may go on and only at the time of execution of the award having financial implications, the bar under section 22 of the SICA can be made applicable and at that stage the respective petitioners/ employees may be directed to obtain consent from the BIFR. 15. In the case of Jay Engineering Works Ltd. (supra), while considering the award under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, vis-a-vis section 20 of the SICA, the hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that adjudicatory process on making an award under the Act of 1993 may not come within the purview of the 1985 Act but once an award is made to be executed it shall come into play. 16. Even in the case of Eagle Flask Industries Ltd. (supra), while considering section 22 of the SICA, the hon'ble Supreme Court has observed and held that the effect of section 22 is to be considered only when there is a demand for recovery ....