Letters Patent Appeal No.1465 OF 2000 (Against the judgment and order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 9772 of 2000 on 26.09.2000) BINOD KUMAR ……………. (Appellant) V E R S U S M.D.,B.S.LEATHER INDST.DEV.COR…………….. (Respondents) ----------------- For the petitioner : Mr. S. K. Ghosh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Giridhar Gopal Tiwary, Adv. For the Corporation: Mr. Rajesh Pd.Choudhar,Adv. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BARIN GHOSH THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M.PRASAD Barin Ghosh & C. M. Prasad, J.J. Merely on the ground that a winding up petition has been presented against the respondent-employer and the said application has been admitted by the Company Court, the writ petition of the appellant, seeking a direction for consideration of his claim for time bound promotion, was dismissed. The writ petition was contested by the respondent-employer by engaging a lawyer. It was submitted that in view of admission of the winding up petition against respondent-employer, the writ petition has become infructuous or not maintainable. By the judgment and order under appeal a learned Single Judge accepted such contention without referring to the appropriate provisions of the law governing the subject. Section 446 of the Companies Act stays suits and other legal proceedings on winding up order being passed, but not on admission of a winding up petition. An admission order is not an - 2 - Patna HighCourt, the 4th August,2008 N.A.F.R/Ravi order of winding up by of a Company. Similarly suits and other legal proceeding referred to in section 446 of the Act denotes suits and other legal proceedings as acknowledged in Section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1998, which does not contemplate a proceeding initiated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The right to approach the Court in its writ jurisdiction is a constitutional right which cannot be taken away by an Act made by the Parliament. In those circumstances, we allow the appeal and set aside the judgment and order under appeal with a direction upon the respondent-employer who is still functional, as we have been informed that no order of winding up has yet been passed, to consider and decide the claim of the appellant for time bound promotion or regular promotion, as the case may be, within a period of two months from to-day. (Barin Ghosh, J.) (C.M. Prasad, J.)