1 wp1203-11.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1203 OF 2011 Arti D. Gawandi & Ors .. Petitioners versus Managing Director Tata Metallicks Ltd & Ors .. Respondents Mrs.Shakuntala A. Mudbidri for the petitioners. Mr.T.Satyanarayan with Mr.M.S.Lad for respondent No.1. Mr.A.B.Vagyani, A.G.P for respondent Nos.3 to 4. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. 28th JULY 2011. P.C.: . This writ petition seeks the following reliefs: “(b) this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the respondent No.3 Tahsildar, Vengurla to consider the legal claim of the petitioners duly registered as a charge against the immovable properties belonging and owned by respondent No.2- Company more particularly described as ‘The entire land in mouje Gavatale village in Survey No.10, Hissa No.01 admeasuring area Hector 1.05.0 Ars or in other words 105 gunthas with all the other 17 house Nos.1833 to 1849 each with RCC roofing measuring 32’.6” X 25’ including first floor 2 wp1203-11.doc 25’ X 25’ area admeasuring 1440 sq.ft the stories RCC Apartment House No.1938 alongwith the pump house No. 1939 measuring 28’ X 21’ for generator-set with the following boundaries East by Survey No.10, Hissa No.44 West by road towards Terekhol leading to the Pig Iron Plant of DH No.3 North by Survey No.38, Hissa No.10, South by Survey No.10, Hissa No.02” and only after the full and final satisfaction of the petitioners claim against the respondent No.2 Company permit the sale as per the proclamation of sale issued in Special Case No.12 of 2007 by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sindhudurg at Oros, Exhibit D to this petition; (c) that the respondent No.2 Tahsildar Vengurla be directed to ascertain, settle and fully and finally settle the claim of petitioners on a priority basis as per the details of encumbrance duly registered against the immovable properties more particularly mentioned at clause NO.4 of the Schedule of the properties of the respondent No.2 Company and till then postpone the said sale as per public notice Exhibit D to this petition to any appropriate date as may be so directed.” 2 The petitioners are 23 in number, claiming to have been employed by the 2nd respondent-Company. They have a grievance with regard to their alleged wrongful and illegal termination by the said Company. Therefore, they approached the Court established and functional under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and (Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice) Act, 1971 (MRTU and PULP Act) by filing a complaint being ULP No.72 of 2004 and ULP No.12 of 2006. It is stated that the 3 wp1203-11.doc Labour Court at Ratnagiri allowed the complaint No.ULP 72 of 2004 and passed order dated 9th February 2007. It is stated that there was order of reinstatement with full backwages. Thus, both complaints were allowed by a judgment and order of the same Court and identical reliefs were granted. 3 Thereafter, recovery proceedings were initiated and a recovery certificate was obtained under section 50 of the said Act vide order dated 11th September 2009. The amount that is sought to be recovered thereunder has been certified as Rs.34,48,632/-, but, according to the petitioners, this is only a limited satisfaction of their dues. The order directs reinstatement of the services in the 2nd respondent and, therefore, it cannot be said that there is complete accord and satisfaction. 4 Be that as it may, the petitioners were aggrieved by the fact that in the meanwhile the 1st respondent had instituted certain proceedings against the 2nd respondent and having succeeded therein, they put that order in execution by filing Execution Case No.12 of 2007. They obtained an order under which the properties of the respondent No.2 4 wp1203-11.doc were directed to be sold. Apprehending that the petitioners claim and particularly the charge on these properties might be adversely affected, that this writ petition has been filed to prohibit and prevent the sale. 5 The details of the dues of both sides are mentioned in paras 1 to 9 of the instant petition. 6 An affidavit has been filed by the Tahsildar, Vengurla, in which he has very clearly stated that the certificate issued by the Labour Court has been returned inasmuch as certain sums are deposited in the said Labour Court. As far as the claim of the 1st respondent against the properties of the 2nd respondent is concerned, it has been stated that the sale has been postponed by virtue of the order passed in the instant petition and an application which has been made by the decree holder No.3, namely, the respondent No.1 to this writ petition. 7 In the light of the said fact and particularly, the order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sindhudurga at Oros, dated 7th February 2011 below Exhibit 102 in Special Darkhast No.12 of 2007, it is clear that the sale has been postponed. 5 wp1203-11.doc 8 Therefore, nothing survives in this writ petition in the light of postponement of the sale. However, apprehension of Mrs.Mudbidri can be taken care of by clarifying that disposing off this writ petition will not in any manner prevent the petitioners from approaching the competent Court/authority and initiate such proceedings as are permissible in law for enforcing and executing the certificate in their favour, so also on insisting for compliance with the orders and directions of the Labour Court dated 9th February 2007 including to seek reinstatement of the services of respondent No.2. All such remedies and contentions therein are kept open. Equally, it is clarified that if the petitioners approach the Labour Court, Ratnagiri, and withdraw the sum of Rs.42 lakhs and odd, deposited therein, the act of withdrawal itself will not prejudice their rights and contentions in any manner. Equally, it would be open for the 1st respondent to contest such proceedings as may be initiated by the petitioners and the priority of the claims of the parties, namely, petitioner and respondent No.1 in so far as the properties of the 2nd respondent are concerned, is an issue, which is kept open. All contentions in that behalf are also unaffected by disposal of this writ petition. Needless to state that in the event the petitioners becoming aware of any fresh 6 wp1203-11.doc proclamation of sale of the 2nd respondent’s property, the disposal of this writ petition will not prevent them from approaching appropriate forum and seeking appropriate reliefs in that behalf. 9 Writ petition is disposed off as above. No costs. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)