IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2011 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 13760 of 2011(T) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- KERALA STATE CASHEW WORKERS FEDERATION REG.NO.02-38/92, REPRESENTED BY WORKING PRESIDENT C. MOHANAN PILLAI, EZHUKONE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN, SRI.S.SUJITH. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. UCO BANK, BEACH ROAD, REPRESENTED BY I. GOPAL AUTHORIZED OFFICER AND CHIEF MANAGER, QUILON BRANCH, PIN- 691 001. 2. M/S. TWILIGHT CASHEW FACTORY BY PROPRIETOR MR. MOHAMADALI BAVA AEROM THADICADU, ANCHAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT. R1 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE KARITHANAM VARGHESE, SC, UCO BANK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/05/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.13760 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of May, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- The petitioner is a Trade Union allegedly representing workers belonging to the 2nd respondent factory. It is stated that there were about 250 workers working in the 2nd respondent factory and that the factory was remaining closed for about 10 years. It is further contended that about 20 workers were superannuated they are entitled to get gratuity amounts, to the tune of Rs.30 lakhs. Yet another allegation is that a sum of Rs.90 lakhs will be required for payment of retirement benefits to 90 other workers. The petitioner also contends that amounts are due from the 2nd respondent as contributions payable towards the Employees Provident Fund. According to the petitioner, basically a sum of Rs.1.5 crores is due from the 2nd respondent to its employees. 2. On the basis of the above narrated allegations the petitioner is seeking to restrain recovery steps initiated by W.P.(C).13760/11 -2- the 1st respondent Bank against the 2nd respondent, on the basis of Ext.P1 notice issued under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). 3. Heard; standing counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. It is contended that the petitioner Trade Union has no 'locus standi' to file this writ petition and the attempt made is only a collusive affair between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. 4. I am of the view that the petitioner Trade Union is not entitled to seek any relief as prayed for. The 1st respondent has now initiated steps on the basis of a valid mortgage created in order to secure the loan amount. Under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act the 1st respondent is entitled to proceed against the immovable property, which is the secured asset. Any third party to the loan transaction is not entitled to have interdiction with the proceedings being pursued in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. 5. Moreover, it is noticed that no employee of the 2nd respondent company is coming forward raising any claim against the 2nd respondent which is already adjudicated and settled. I W.P.(C).13760/11 -3- am of the considered opinion that the Trade Union allegedly representing the workers could not be permitted to interdict with the proceedings legally initiated, on the basis of any wild allegations made as stated above. 6. Hence I hold that the petitioner Trade Union has no locus standi to file this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb