1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 4746 OF 2007. ( Babulal Lade and others -: versus :- Vainganga Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. and another.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : JULY 12, 2010. Heard Smt. A.P. Shinde, learned counsel for petitioners, Shri M.V. Samarth, learned counsel for respondent no.3 and Shri B.G. Kulkarni, learned counsel for respondent no.4. The petitioners are elected representative under Bombay Industrial Relation Act, who wanted the Industrial Court, Bhandara to issue a certificate under Section 50 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act for recovery of their out standings as per the judgment dated 24.08.2006 in Complaint ULPA No. 65/2006 i.e. mostly the amounts toward unpaid salary. 2 Mrs. Shinde, learned Counsel points out that because the immoveable property of respondent nos. 1 and 2 Employer was taken in possession by respondent no.3 Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank Limited, the said Bank was also joined as party respondent and recovery certificate was also asked for, even against the said respondent. Her contention is, unless and until the recovery certificate is issued, petitioners cannot proceed further and lodge their claim in liquidation proceedings or any where else. Shri Samarth, learned counsel for respondent no.3 Bank, points out that respondent no.3 has acted in accordance with the law and to recover the loan liabilities, the properties are taken in possession. He argues that respondent no.3 is not employer and there cannot be any allegation of unfair labour practice against respondent no.3. Shri Kulkarni, learned counsel for respondent no.4 states that respondent no.4 has purchased the property in auction proceedings conducted by respondent no.3 and no relief can be sought even against respondent no.4. This Court is not concerned with the remedies which petitioners may have against respondent nos. 3 and 4 in present matter. The adjudication by the Industrial Court on 24.08.2006 in ULP Complaint No. 65/2006 is against the 3 employer i.e. respondent nos. 1 and 2, thereafter Misc. ULP Application No. 5/2007 came to be filed as per Section 50 of the Act to seek recovery certificate which could have been then executed in accordance with law. It is apparent that the said recovery was possible only against respondent nos. 1 and 2 to the ULP Complaint i.e. employer. The learned Member of the Industrial Court has erroneously observed that because respondent nos. 1 and 2 have no funds no recovery certificate cannot be issued. The Industrial Court was not concerned with the financial condition of the employer. It had adjudicated the issue of entitlement of applicants before it, and it was duty bound to issue necessary certificate. It is for the employees then to use that certificate in accordance with law and to make efforts to recover their outstanding. Hence, the impugned order dated 27.04.2007 in so far as it rejects the recovery certificate to petitioners is hereby quashed and set aside. The Industrial Court shall issue recovery certificate to petitioners against respondent nos. 1 and 2 in Misc. ULP Complaint No. 5/2007. The petitioners shall be free to execute that certificate in accordance with the law. 4 All contentions raised by the petitioner against respondent nos. 3 and 4 and contentions raised by those respondents in the matter are kept open for consideration by the Competent Forum. Writ Petition is disposed of with above directions. Rule accordingly. No costs. JUDGE Rgd.