1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2438/2007 Mirza Munir Baig s/o Mirza Amir Baig and others .. PETITIONERS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & Ors ..RESPONDENTS .... Smt.Ujjwal Agrawal,Advocate for petitioners. Shri D.R.Kale,A.G.P. for Respondent-State. .... CORAM : NARESH H.PATIL & N.D.DESHPANDE,JJ. DATE : 15/04/2010 ORAL ORDER : [PER PATIL,J.] 1] Heard. 2] The petitioners contend that they were working with the respondent Spinning Mill, Nanded Sahakari Soot Girni Ltd., which 2 is admittedly facing liquidation proceedings. In substance, the petitioners are raising claim against retrenchment, compensation, gratuity for the years 1968 to 1994, provident fund, compliance of provisions of Section 25(M) and 25(O) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The learned counsel for petitioners submits that the reliance of the respondent no.3 on the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.4943/2005 cannot conclude the right of the petitioner to raise their grievance in respect of the issues which are raised in this Petition. It was submitted that earlier, Marathwada Rashtriya Mills Majdoor Sangh, Aurangabad which was the concerned union looking after interest of the petitioners, had approached the Labour Court by filing Application No.2/94 under the provisions of Section 15(2) of Payment of Wages Act, did not prosecute the matter any further. The said proceedings were dismissed in defalut. Learned counsel submitted that the Liquidator has not calculated the dues which were to be paid to the petitioners which caused monetary loss and prejudice to the petitioners. 3] Respondent no.3 filed affidavit in reply twice. Reference is given by respondent no.3 to the order passed by us in Writ Petition No.4943/2006 (Coram : Naresh H.Patil and R.M.Borde,JJ.) on 24/4/2007. 4] It is contended by learned A.G.P. that consequent upon the order passed by this Court notices were issued and objections were called. These workers raised objections, which were 3 decided by a reasoned order on 10/7/1977 which is annexed at Exh.R-3 by respondent to his affidavit in reply. The second affidavit in reply by respondent no.3 is to the effect that the legal dues of the workmen were settled to the tune of Rs.52,58,478.40 Ps. and they were paid. It is stated that the respondent no.3 heard parties and decided all claims. The deponent further states that liquidation proceedings have not been terminated. The deponent submits that the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Aurangabad had recovered Rs.31.82 Lakhs from savings account of the liquidator. 5] We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioners and respondent no.3. The claim petition filed by Union is said to have been dismissed by the Labour Court,wherein Union claimed amount of Rs.90,95,869/-. In the proceedings of Writ Petition No.3557/99, this Court passed following order : “Mrs.Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners, further stated that even some other legal dues like gratuity etc. are also not paid to the employees in respect of their service period. Under the payment of Gratuity act there is a remedy available to the petitioners to approach to the competent forum and when such alternative and efficacious remedy is available it is desirable 4 that the petitions are not entertained by this Court. In this view of the matter, the petitions are rejected and we make it clear that we have not considered the submissions on merits as the issues are pending before the Labour Court and the Labour Court may decide the pending cases on their own merits.” 6] One of the petitioners had approached this Court in Writ Petition No.4943/2006. While disposing of the said matter, this Court passed following order in para 7 : “7] We find that there are 512 workers including the petitioner who were working with the Soot Girni. Though the petitioner alone approached this Court, to avoid multiplicity of litigation, we direct the Liquidator to call for objections from the concerned workers regarding payment of retrenchment compensation. The liquidator shall call for objections by adequately informing the workers by pasting notice on the Notice Board of the Liquidator’s office, by publication of the notice in local newspaper having wide circulation and by adopting any other method. The Liquidator 5 shall thereafter take a decision and pass order which would be applicable to all the workers and a report be forwarded to the Director, Handlooms, Powerlooms and Textiles for his approval. This exercise shall be completed within 8 weeks from today. The Director of Handlooms, Powerlooms and Textiles thereafter shall take a final decision within 2 months thereafter on the report of the Liquidator and communicate his decision accordingly as expeditiously as possible to the Liquidator.” 7] Accordingly, the Liquidator was directed to decide the claim and said order was forwarded to the Director, Handlooms, Powerlooms and Textiles. Thus time bound schedule was provided to the Liquidator. Accordingly, objections were forwarded, which were considered. Affidavit in reply of respondent no.3 contends that Assistant Commissioner,Provident Fund, had recovered Rs.31.82 Lakhs from savings account of the Liquidator and the Liquidator had communicated to the Assistant Commissioner, Provident Fund to reconcile the account of the Soot Girni vide his letter dated 3/12/2007. 8] The petitioners have raised issues for which scrutiny of evidence and hearing is required. These are questions of facts. 6 The Union of workmen approached the Labour Court and Writ Petition was also preferred bearing Writ Petition No.3557/1999. In the proceedings of Writ Petition No.4943/2006, this Court had passed order, considering the fact that there are more than 500 workers who were at the crucial time working in the Soot Girni. 9] Liquidators proceedings are governed in the light of the Provisions of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. 10] The petitioners have raised various issues in respect of claims under different heads. In case petitioners have any grievance in respect of claims, then, the petitioners may resort to alternate remedies as permissible in law. 11] In the light of the material placed on record, replies filed, we are of the opinion that no further interference is required in extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by this Court. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. [N.D.DESHPANDE,J.] [NARESH H.PATIL,J.] umg/wp2438-07