Case: Laxmidas Thakkar & Others Vs. The State Government of Maharashtra & Another

R.D. DHANUKA, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Respondents waives service. Heard finally by consent of parties.2. This Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity of Notification No. BRU2011/ C.R.(211/11) Ind. 10 dated 26th May, 2011 issued by State of Maharashtra in relation to Respondent No.2 which has been declared as relief undertaking from time to time for last about 12 years.3. In order to understand the grievances of the Petition, certain facts are necessary to be stated:4. Petitioner No.1 is a Social Activist and is Regional Coordinator of AGNI Action for good Governance and Networking in India. Petitioner No.2 is a Chartered Accountant. Petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are retired corporate executives. Respondent No.2 is primarily in construction of housing projects at various locations in Mumbai, Thane, Navi Mumbai and its suburbs.5. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Petitioners had purchased flats in Lok Everest Complex and Respondent No.2 had misappropriated amount collected towards corpus fund, property tax etc. in contravention of the provisions of Section 5 of MOFA and had not provided promised amenities to the flat buyers.6. By Notification dated 27th January, 1999, the State Government of Maharashtra declared Respondent No.2 as a Relief Undertaking. Subsequent to the said Notification dated 27th January, 1999, Government of Maharashtra in exercising of powers under Sections 3 and 4 of Bombay Relief Undertaking (Special Provisions) Act, 1958(hereinafter referred to as the said Act) continued Respondent No.2 as Relief Undertaking and is continued to be exempted from several provisions of statues mentioned in the Notification from time to time. Last of such notification issued by Respondent No.1 is dated 26th May, 2011 which is impugned by the Petitioner in the present petition. That Notification is as follows :INDUSTRIES,ENERGY AND LABOUR DEPARTMENTMantralaya, Mumbai 400 032, dated 26th May 2011.NOTIFICATIONBOMBAYRELIEF UNDERTAKINGS (SPECIAL PROVISIONS) ACT, 1958.No. BRU2011/ C.R.(211/11) Ind. 10.Whereas by Government Notification, Industries, Energy and Labour Department, No.BRU 2009/CR(204/09)/Ind.10, dated 26th May 2009, the Government of Maharashtra declared, under subsection (1) of Section 3 of the Bombay Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act, 1958 (Bom.-XCVI of 1958) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), that the industrial undertaking called Lok Housing and Constructions Limited having its registered office at 4, Lok Bhavan, Lok Bharti Complex, MarolMaroshi Road, Marol, Andheri (East), Mumbai 400 059 (hereinafter referred to as the said relief undertaking), to which the financial assistance of Rs. 1,44,65,084 (Rupees One Crore Forty four lakhs Sixty five thousand eighty four only) has been provided by the Government of Maharashtra under the Package Scheme of Incentives through the State Industrial and Investment Corporation of Maharashtra Limited, should, for a period of one year commencing on the 26th May 2009 and ending on the 25th May 2010 (both days inclusive), be conducted to serve as a measure of unemployment relief; and directed, under sub-clause (iv) of clause (a) of subsection (1) of section 4 of the said Act, that in relation to the said relief undertaking and in respect of the said period for which the said relief undertaking continues as such, any rights, privileges, obligations or liabilities [except the obligations or liabilities incurred in favour of the workmen of the said Relief Undertaking, the dues of Employees State Insurance Corporation and any liabilities incurred under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952), the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (Mah.-XLI of 1966), the Maharashtra State Tax on Professions, Trades, Callings and Employments Act, 1975 (Mah.- XVI of 1975) and the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 (Mah.IX of 2005)], accrued or incurred before the 26th May 2010 and any remedy for the enforcement thereof should be suspended and all proceedings relating thereto pending before any court, tribunal officer or authority, should be stayed;And whereas by Government Notification, Industries, Energy and Labour Department, No. BRU 2010/CR(237/10)/Ind.10, dated 26th May 2010, the Government of Maharashtra has declared that the said relief undertaking shall continue to serve as a measure of unemployment relief for a further period of one year commending on the 26th May 2010 and ending on 25th May 2011 (both days inclusive) and issued the similar directions, as aforesaid, for the said period ;And whereas the Government of Maharashtra is of the opinion that the said Relief undertaking should continue to serve as a measure of unemployment relief for a further period of one year commencing from the 26th May 2011 and ending on the 25th May 2012 (both days inclusive) and in respect to the said further period directions, as aforesaid, in relation to the said relief undertaking should also be issued ;Now, therefore, the Government of Maharashtra in exercise of the powers conferred by,-(a) subsection (1) of section 3 of the said Act, hereby declares that the said relief undertaking shall, for a period of one year commencing from the 26th May 2011 and ending on the 25th May 2012 (both days inclusive) be conducted to serve as a measure of unemployment relief; and(b) sub clause (iv) of clause (a) of subsection (1) of section 4 of the said Act, hereby directs that, in relation to the said relief undertaking and in respect of the said further period of one year commencing from 26th May 2011 and ending on the 25th May 2012 (both days inclusive) for which the said relief undertaking continues as such, any rights, privileges, obligations or liabilities [except the obligations or liabilities incurred in favour of the workmen of the said relief undertaking, the dues of Employees State Insurance Corporation and any liabilities incurred under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952), the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (Mah.- XLI of 1966), the Maharashtra State Tax on Professions, Trades, Callings and Employments Act, 1975 (Mah.-XVI of 1975) and the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 (Mah.-IX of 2005)], accrued or incurred before the 26th May 2011 and any remedy for the enforcement thereof shall be suspended and all proceedings relating thereto before any court, tribunal officer, or authority, shall be stayed.By order and in the name of the Governor of Maharashtra,RAMESH NIKHARGE,Desk Officer.7. It would be convenient at this stage to reproduce sections 3 and 4 of the Bombay Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act, 1958 as under:3.(1) If at any time it appears to the State Government necessary to do so, the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare that an industrial undertaking specified in the notification, whether started, acquired or otherwise taken over by the State Government, and carried on or proposed to be carried on by itself or under its authority, [or to which any loan, guarantee or other financial assistance has been provided by the State Government] shall, with effect from the date specified for the purpose in the notification, [be conducted] to serve as a measure [of preventing unemployment or] of unemployment relief and the undertaking shall accordingly be deemed to be a relief undertaking for the purposes of this Act.(2) A notification under subsection (1) shall have effect for such period not exceeding twelve months as may be specified in the notification; but it shall be renewable by like notifications from time to time for further periods not exceeding [twelve months at a time, so however that all the periods in the aggregate do not exceed (fifteen years]. ,4.(l) Notwithstanding any law, usage, custom, contract, instrument, decree, order, award, submission, settlement, standing order or other provision whatsoever, the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that-(a)in relation to any relief undertaking and in respect of the period for which the relief undertaking continues as such under subsection (2) of section 3-(i) all or any of the laws in the Schedule to this Act or any provisions thereof shall not apply (and such relief undertaking shall be exempt there from), or shall, if so directed by the State Government, be applied with such modifications (which do not however affect the policy of the said laws) as may be specified in the notification;(ii) all or any of the agreements, settlements, awards or standing orders made under any of the laws in the Schedule to this Act, which may be applicable to the undertaking immediately before it was acquired or taken over by the State Government [ or before any loan, guarantee or other financial assistance was provided to it by, or with the approval of the State Government,] for being run as a relief undertaking, shall be suspended in operation or shall, if so directed by the State Government, be applied with such modifications as may be specified in the notification;(iii) right, privilege, obligations and liabilities shall be determined and be enforceable in accordance with clauses (i) and (ii) and the notification;(iv) any right, privilege, obligation or liability accrued or incurred before the undertaking was declared a relief undertaking and any remedy for the enforcement thereof shall be suspended and all proceedings relative thereof pending before any court, tribunal, officer or authority shall be stayed;(b) the right, privilege, obligation or liability referred in clause (a) (iv) shall, on the notification ceasing to have force, revive, and be enforceable and the proceedings referred to therein shall be continued :Provided that in computing the period of limitation for the enforcement of such right, privilege, obligation or liability, the period during which it was suspended under clause (a) (iv) shall be excluded notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force.(2) A notification under subsection (1) shall have effect from such date not being earlier than the date referred to in subsection (1) of section 3, as may be specified therein, and the provisions of section 21 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904, shall apply to the power to issue such notification.8. The Petitioners challenges the validity as well as legality of the Notification dated 26th May, 2011 in the present petition. It is contended by the Petitioners that due to such declaration of the Respondent No.2 as relief undertaking from time to time, the Petitioners were left with no legal recourse against Respondent No.2 for any claims and/or for ensuring specific performance under flat purchase agreement. The Petitioners submitted that the figures reflected in the audited annual accounts of Respondent No.2 proved that the Respondent No.2 had always been having a huge net worth i.e. excess of the aggregate value of assets over the aggregate value of all liabilities for the last several years and the net worth amounted to Rs. 201 crores as at 31st March, 2011 and Rs.195 crores as at 31st March, 2010. Relying upon the audited annual accounts of the Respondent No.2, the Petitioners contended that in view of the huge net worth as reflected in such audited accounts, Respondent No.2 need not be declared as relief undertaking. It is contended that if any liabilities were to be cleared by the Respondent No.2 Company, the same could be cleared after sale of some of the fixed assets of the Respondent No.2 Company. It is contended that in terms of Section 4(1) (a) (iv) of the said Act, since the date of declaring of Respondent No.2 as Relief Undertaking was 26th May, 2009, only those rights, privileges, obligations or liabilities accrued to incurred prior to 26th May, 2009 could be suspended, however, Respondent No.1 vide impugned notification suspended rights, privileges, obligations or liabilities accrued or incurred prior to 26th May, 2011. In support of the aforesaid submissions made by the Petitioners, the Petitioners placed a reliance of the Judgment of this Court in case of RashtriyaMill Mazdoor Sangh vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (1967) 69 Bombay Law Reporter 140 and also the Judgment in the case of ShankarraoMaruti Nagane vs. The State of Maharashtra reported in (1970) 72 Bombay Law Reporter 77 .9. Per contra, the Respondent No.1 State, Respondent No.2 i.e. Relief Undertaking strongly opposed the petition filed by the Petitioners on various grounds. Respondent No.1 filed affidavit dated 13th February, 2012 opposing the said petition. Respondent No.2 company has filed affidavit dated 18th January, 2012 opposing the petition.10. Shri.Nalawade, the Learned Government Pleader pointed out that though the impugned notification was issued on 26th May, 2011, the present petition has been filed only in the month of October, 2011 and such delay or lapse for challenging the said impugned notification has not been explained. The Learned Government Pleader further contended that the Government had issued the impugned notification after considering the application made by the Respondent No.2 as well as the material placed by the Respondent No.2 before the Government in that regard, in accordance with its policy and after considering the economic, commercial and employment related factors. He further contended that the commercial and economic wisdom of the Government could not be challenged by way of a Writ Petition. He contended that the State Government has powers to issue notification not exceeding aggregate period of 15 years. It was pointed out that after giving, the Relief Undertaking benefit to the Respondent No.2 Company, out of total 21 banks and financial institutions, it has settled so far and fully paid dues of 20 banks and financial institutions. Respondent No.2 has also paid dues of the employees towards provident fund, income tax etc. It is further submitted that the Government had issued the impugned notification after considering the grievance of and also considering the delay plights and public authority involved and had extended the relief undertaking to the Respondent No.2 company for a further period of one year w.e.f. 26th May, 2011 and in no manner it could be considered that the Government was favouring the Respondent No.2 company in any manner whatsoever.11. Shri Jain, the Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 contended that Respondent No.2 had settled and paid 20 out of 21 banks and other institutional creditors. State Bank of India was the only remaining creditor of Respondent No.2 and negotiations for settlement with the said bank was at advance stage. It is contended that Respondent No.2 had launched eight new projects and extended the existing ones comprising of 2208 flats/shops aggregating to about 14,46,531 sq.ft. Respondent No.2 pointed out that as on 31st March, 2011 Respondent No.2 had settled and fully paid dues of 97 ex-employees of Respondent No.2 and has to settle the dues of 98 present and ex-employees. It was pointed out that from 1998 till 2010, there were in all 45 Company Petitions and 53 suits filed against Respondent No.2 Company and as on 31st March, 2011, 7 suits are still pending. The Learned Counsel pointed out that continued extension of the protection is necessary to ensure that Respondent No.2 was protected from extortionary litigation that would be initiated by its other creditors. The Learned counsel pointed out that even if there is net worth i.e. excess of aggregate value of assets over value of liability as referred by the Petitioners, in view of the fact that Respondent No.2 Company is a running concerned, it could not dispose of the assets and clear the existing liability and if that recourse was available, the Respondent No.2 would not be able to continue its business activities for want of availability of assets. The Learned Counsel invited our attention to the order passed by this Court on 24th August, 1999 in Writ Petition No. 1388 of 1999 filed by Gayatri Balasubramaniam against State of Maharashtra and others including Respondent No.2 herein, the Order dated 3rd April, 2000 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 735 of 2000 filed by Gayatri Balasubramanian against State of Maharashtra and another including Respondent No.2 herein and Order dated 11th July, 2001 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1060 of 2001 filed by Manoj Alimchandani against State of Maharashtra and another including Respondent No.2 herein. The Learned Counsel pointed out that in the aforesaid three writ petitions, this Court has already rejected the challenge to the constitutional validity of Sections 3 and 4 of Bombay Relief and Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act, 1958 and also rejected three earlier notifications issued by the State of Maharashtra under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act declaring Respondent No. 2 as relief undertaking for 3 earlier years. The Learned Counsel also invited our attention to the Order dated 31st March, 2003 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 919 of 2003 filed by Unit Trust of India against State of Maharashtra and another including Respondent No.2 herein challenging another notification issued by Respondent No.1 granting similar reliefs to Respondent No. 2 herein under the provisions of the said Act. By the said Order, the Division Bench had directed that the notification in favour of Respondent No.2 under the said Act not to be issued if it had not been issued so far. Being aggrieved by the said Order dated 31st March, 2003, the Respondent No.2 herein filed Special Leave Petition bearing No. 5994 of 2003 in the Apex Court. By the Order dated 17th April, 2003, the Apex Court granted stay of the directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition No. 919 of 2003 prohibiting the issuance of notification under the provisions of the said Act. We have been informed that thereafter the said Writ Petition bearing No. 919 of 2003 was disposed of by Order dated 16th March, 2005 by the Division Bench of this Court holding that since the period of impugned notification expired on 11th March, 2004, the reliefs in the said writ petition could not be granted.12. Shri Jain distinguished the judgment relied upon by the Petitioners in case of Shankarrao Maruti Nagane (supra) and in case of Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh (supra). ShriJain also relied upon the statements of objections, reasons dated 13th March, 1958 of the Bombay Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act, 1958 showing the purpose of enacting the said Act. The said statement of objects and reasons reads as under:STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONSIn order to mitigate the hardship that may be caused to the workers who may be thrown out of employment by the closure of an undertaking, Government may take over such undertaking either on lease or on such conditions as may be deemed suitable and run it as a measure of unemployment relief. In such cases Government may have to fix revised terms of employment of the workers or to make other changes which may not be in consonance with the existing labour laws or any agreements or awards applicable to the undertaking. It may become necessary even to exempt the undertaking from certain legal provisions. For these reasons it is proposed to obtain power to exclude an undertaking, run by or under the authority of Government as a measure of unemployment relief, from the operation of certain labour laws or any specified provisions thereof subject to such conditions and for such periods as may be specified. It is also proposed to make a provision to secure that while the rights and liabilities of the original employer and workmen may remain suspended during the period the undertaking is run by Government, they would revive and become enforceable as soon as the undertaking ceases to be under the control of Government.Dated the 13th March 1958. (Signed) SHANTILAL H.SHAH13. Shri Jain, Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2 also placed reliance on the Judgment of the Apex Court in case of DoburgLager Breweries Pvt. Ltd. versus Dhariwal Bottle Trading Co. & Anr. reported in (1986) 2 Supreme Court Cases 382 in support of his plea that this Court should show more concern and to give greater attention before quashing a statutory instrument made or issued under a beneficent legislation intended to prevent large scale unemployment and misery. The Learned Counsel contended that due to issuance of the notification for last 12 years by the Respondent No.1 declaring the Respondent No.2 as Relief Undertaking, the Respondent No.2 was able to prevent unemployment and was able to grant unemployment reliefs. The Apex Court in the Judgment reported in (1986) 2 Supreme Court Cases 382 has held that the Courts are expected to show more concern and to give grater attention before quashing a statutory instrument made or issued under a beneficent legislation intended to prevent large scale unemployment and misery. It has been further held that the whole object of the said Act is to sub-serve the public interest and in particular to prevent unemployment or to grant unemployment relief. It has been held that if any loan is granted by the State Government to an industrial undertaking or other financial assistance is given then it may be declared as a relief undertaking. The Apex Court has interpreted section 3 and Section 4(1) (a) of the said Act and has held that the only precondition for the exercise of the power under Section 3 was that loan must have been advanced prior to the date of notification and it must still be outstanding on that day. The Learned Counsel invited our attention to the impugned notification in which it is recited that the financial assistance of Rs.1,44,65,084/(Rupees One Crore Forty four lakhs Sixty five thousand eighty four only) has been provided by the Government of Maharashtra under the Scheme of Incentives through the State Industrial and Investment Corporation of Maharashtra Limited. The Learned Counsel pointed out that under the impugned notification, all the liabilities and demand have not been protected. Certain obligations or liabilities incurred in favour of workmen of the said Relief Undertaking, the dues of Employees State Insurance Corporation and any liabilities incurred under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, Professional Tax etc. are not protected under the said notification.14. As far as Judgment in case of RashtriyaMill Mazdoor Sangh (supra) relied upon by the Petitioners is concerned, the Division Bench of this Court while considering the validity of the notification dated 28th September, 1965 exercising its power under Sections 3 and 4 of the said Act quashed part of the said notification in so far has it purported to suspend the Agreement dated 7th November, 1964 entered into between Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh, Nagpur, the Petitioners therein and Modern Mills, Nagpur. In that context, in para 18 of the said Judgment, the Division Bench of this Court held as follows:18. .............................. If with open eyes an undertaking after it is declared as a relief undertaking enters into agreement or submits to an arbitration and an award is passed, it does not appear to be the intention of this law to give a further protection to such undertaking even in spite of the agreement or award solemnly entered into after the undertaking is declared as a relief undertaking and had full protection of the Government under the different provisions of the Act.15. Though the Petitioners placed reliance on the Judgment of the Division Bench referred (supra), Petitioners were not able to point out how the said judgment was applicable to the facts of this case. The Petitioners also could not point out as to whether any such existing agreement entered into before 26th May, 2010 in so far as impugned notification is concerned was suspended. The facts of the case are totally different and therefore reliance placed by the Petitioners in the Judgment in case of Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh (supra) is misplaced.16. As far as the Judgment of this Court reported in (1970) 72 Bombay Law Reporter 77 is concerned, the Petitioners could not point out from the said Judgment how the said Judgment was applicable to the facts of this case. From the perusal of the said judgment, it is clear that the Division Bench of this Court after distinguishing the facts of the Judgment in case of RashtriyaMill Mazdoor Sangh (supra) rejected the petition challenging the legality and validity of the notification issued by the State of Maharashtra under Section 4 of the said Act. On the contrary, the Division Bench in the said Judgment in case of ShankarraoMaruti Nagane (supra) in para 19 has held as under:19. ...... The Government is under no legal obligation to provide employment for such workmen. It does so as part of its scheme of social legislation and for the benefit of workmen. The Government takes over and runs an undertaking as a relief undertaking obviously only when, that undertaking is not in a financial position to run and, if not already closed down, would close down in course of time rendering all its employees without job. The provisions of Section 4 provide a safeguard to the Government against the demands of the workmen for whose benefit the relief undertaking is being conducted. The position of a relief undertaking is basically different from that of a normal ordinary undertaking run on business lines and for the earnings of profits.17. In our view, the reliance pressed by the Petitioners on the said Judgment in case of Shankar Maruti Nagane (supra) is totally misplaced. On the contrary the said Judgment assist the Respondent Company and not the Petitioners.18. As far as submissions of the Petitioners that the Respondent No.2 Company had huge net worth for last several years and therefore could not have been granted benefit of provisions of Section 4 of the said Act by declaring the Relief Undertaking and further that if there was any liabilities of the Respondent No.2 Company, the Respondent No.2 could have sold some of its fixed assets so as to clear such liability, we are of the view that if this course would have been adopted by the Respondent No.2 to clear the liabilities, Respondent No.2 Company would be require to close its undertaking and it would result in creating further liability and creating unemployment. We are, therefore, of the view that there is no substance in the said arguments advanced by the Petitioner through the Petitioner No.1 and 2 in person.19. After perusing the impugned notification issued by the Respondent No.1, we are of the view that the said notification has been issued in conformity with the objects and purposes set out in the statements of the objects and reasons for enacting the provisions of Bombay Relief Undertaking (Special Provisions) Act, 1958. We, therefore, do not find any substance in the arguments of the Petitioners that the said notification was not in accordance with the provisions of the said Act.20. After perusal of the reply filed by the Respondent No.2 Company, it is clear that several liabilities of the creditors of the Respondent No.2 Company have been cleared during the period when such notifications were issued by Respondent No. 1 from time-to-time. It was also pointed out that several proceedings were filed between 1998 till 2010 against Respondent No.2 Company and as against 45 company petitions and 53 suits as on 31st March, 2011; only 7 suits are pending. Respondent No.2 also launched new projects. Respondent No.2 has settled and fully paid dues of its 97 ex-employees and has to settle the dues of 98. Considering these uncontraverted averments, we are of the view that we should not interfere in the notification issued by Respondent No.1.21. We are of the view that issuance of the notification was under the beneficial legislation intended to prevent large scale unemployment and misery, it would not be proper to quash statutory instruments issued under Section 4 of the Act . We are unable to entertain the petition filed by the present petitioners also on the ground of unexplained delay and latches on the part of the petitioners in challenging in notification which was issued in the month of 26th May, 2011 whereas the present petition came to be filed only on 3rd October, 2011. We are of the view that there is no infirmity in the notification issued by the Respondent No.1 declaring the Respondent No.2 company as relief undertaking under the provisions of the said Act in the notification issued by Respondent No.1.

Decision:
0[ds]15. Though the Petitioners placed reliance on the Judgment of the Division Bench referred (supra), Petitioners were not able to point out how the said judgment was applicable to the facts of this case. The Petitioners also could not point out as to whether any such existing agreement entered into before 26th May, 2010 in so far as impugned notification is concerned was suspended. The facts of the case are totally different and therefore reliance placed by the Petitioners in the Judgment in case of Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh (supra) is misplaced.16. As far as the Judgment of this Court reported in (1970) 72 Bombay Law Reporter 77  is concerned, the Petitioners could not point out from the said Judgment how the said Judgment was applicable to the facts of this case. From the perusal of the said judgment, it is clear that the Division Bench of this Court after distinguishing the facts of the Judgment in case of RashtriyaMill Mazdoor Sangh (supra) rejected the petition challenging the legality and validity of the notification issued by the State of Maharashtra under Section 4 of the said Act. On the contrary, the Division Bench in the said Judgment in case of ShankarraoMaruti Nagane (supra) in para 19 has held as under:19. ...... The Government is under no legal obligation to provide employment for such workmen. It does so as part of its scheme of social legislation and for the benefit of workmen. The Government takes over and runs an undertaking as a relief undertaking obviously only when, that undertaking is not in a financial position to run and, if not already closed down, would close down in course of time rendering all its employees without job. The provisions of Section 4 provide a safeguard to the Government against the demands of the workmen for whose benefit the relief undertaking is being conducted. The position of a relief undertaking is basically different from that of a normal ordinary undertaking run on business lines and for the earnings of profits.17. In our view, the reliance pressed by the Petitioners on the said Judgment in case of Shankar Maruti Nagane (supra) is totally misplaced. On the contrary the said Judgment assist the Respondent Company and not the Petitioners.18. As far as submissions of the Petitioners that the Respondent No.2 Company had huge net worth for last several years and therefore could not have been granted benefit of provisions of Section 4 of the said Act by declaring the Relief Undertaking and further that if there was any liabilities of the Respondent No.2 Company, the Respondent No.2 could have sold some of its fixed assets so as to clear such liability, we are of the view that if this course would have been adopted by the Respondent No.2 to clear the liabilities, Respondent No.2 Company would be require to close its undertaking and it would result in creating further liability and creating unemployment. We are, therefore, of the view that there is no substance in the said arguments advanced by the Petitioner through the Petitioner No.1 and 2 in person.19. After perusing the impugned notification issued by the Respondent No.1, we are of the view that the said notification has been issued in conformity with the objects and purposes set out in the statements of the objects and reasons for enacting the provisions of Bombay Relief Undertaking (Special Provisions) Act, 1958. We, therefore, do not find any substance in the arguments of the Petitioners that the said notification was not in accordance with the provisions of the said Act.20. After perusal of the reply filed by the Respondent No.2 Company, it is clear that several liabilities of the creditors of the Respondent No.2 Company have been cleared during the period when such notifications were issued by Respondent No. 1 fromIt was also pointed out that several proceedings were filed between 1998 till 2010 against Respondent No.2 Company and as against 45 company petitions and 53 suits as on 31st March, 2011; only 7 suits are pending. Respondent No.2 also launched new projects. Respondent No.2 has settled and fully paid dues of its 97and has to settle the dues of 98. Considering these uncontraverted averments, we are of the view that we should not interfere in the notification issued by Respondent No.1.21. We are of the view that issuance of the notification was under the beneficial legislation intended to prevent large scale unemployment and misery, it would not be proper to quash statutory instruments issued under Section 4 of the Act . We are unable to entertain the petition filed by the present petitioners also on the ground of unexplained delay and latches on the part of the petitioners in challenging in notification which was issued in the month of 26th May, 2011 whereas the present petition came to be filed only on 3rd October, 2011. We are of the view that there is no infirmity in the notification issued by the Respondent No.1 declaring the Respondent No.2 company as relief undertaking under the provisions of the said Act in the notification issued by Respondent No.1.