IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 24559 of 2000 BETWEEN: IDPL (Hyd) Employees Co-operatives Credit Society Ltd., Rep by Mr. R. Siddaiah, S/o Pochaiah, Secretary, R/o 7-14, Ambedkar Nagar, Chintal H.M.T. Road, Qutbullapur, Ranga Reddy District. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of India Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi. 2 The Chairman & Managing Director, Director Finance, IDPL Dhundehera complex, Gurgaon-122001. 3 The Plant Incharge, I.D.P.L. (Hyd), Balanagar (PO), Hyderabad-37(A.P). 4 The Finance Manager, I.D.P.L. (Hyd), Balanagar (PO), Hyderabad-37. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus or other appropriate order or direction declaring the action of the respondents for not paying the dues of petitioner society as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice further direct the respondent to pay the dues of petitioners society forthwith along with 24% in the interest of justice as otherwise petitioners will by put to irreparable loss and damage or pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner: MS.P.A.KAMALESWARI Counsel for the Respondents: MR. K. SRINIVASA MURTHY The Court made the following: ORDER: Petitioner is a Cooperative Credit Society registered under the Societies Registration Act for the beneﬁt of its members, who are the employees of Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Limited (IDPL). As per the agreement entered into between the management of IDPL and the petitioner-society, the management used to recover the amounts advanced by the petitioner-society from out of the salaries of its members but the recovered amounts were not remitted to the petitioner-society. Therefore, the petitioner-society seeks a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not paying the dues of the petitioner-society as illegal and arbitrary and to direct the respondents to pay the dues payable to the petitioner-society along with interest. 2. It is not in dispute that IDPL itself has been referred to BIFR and declared as sick industry by registering a case No.503 of 1992. The production in the Company has been completely stopped from October 1996 and the Company is fully depended upon the funds provided by the Government of India, who are the promoters of the Company. The salaries of the employees and the retirement beneﬁts for the retired employees and in death cases to the legal heirs of the deceased employees are being paid only after receiving the funds from the Government of the India. It is stated in the counter that an amount of Rs.2,45,20,209.62 is due and payable to the petitioner- society for the period between September 1994 and March 2000 and out of the said amount, an amount of Rs.14,76,153.00 has been paid on 31.03.2000 in respect of the months of January to March 2000 thus leaving a total due of Rs.2,30,44,056.62. From April 2000 onwards the dues to the petitioner-society has been cleared as and when the salaries to the employees are paid. An amount of Rs.2.74 crores has been provided in the package towards the liability in respect of the petitioner-society and the respondent company has been paying the current dues as and when salaries are being paid to its employees only after getting the required funds from the Government of India. Some amounts towards the old dues had also been paid form the internal generation of funds by the respondent company. The present liability as on the date of ﬁling of the counter in February 2001 is Rs.2,30,44,056.62. It is further stated that non-payment of the dues is neither willful nor intention. It is stated that some ex-employees, who were relieved under Voluntary Retirement Scheme, have ﬁled writ petitions in WP.Nos.8204, 8217 and 12647 of 1998, which were disposed by this Court directing the respondent company to pay the dues but for want of funds when the dues could not be paid, they ﬁled contempt case Nos.2157 and 2158 of 1998 and 11 of 1999 and in the contempt case the following order is passed “However, the Company’s liability to discharge its obligation to pay the amounts to the petitioners continues and as and when the ﬁnancial position of the Company improves, the amounts shall be paid without raising any objections as to the limitations for implementing the orders passed by this Court. It shall be open to the petitioners to bring it to the notice of this Court as and when the ﬁnancial capacity and position of the respondent company improves. With the observations as above, the contempt cases shall stand closed.” 3. I am of the opinion that the petitioner-society is also entitled for the same relief in this writ petition. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the Company’s liability to discharge its obligation to pay the amounts to the petitioner- society continues and as and when the ﬁnancial position of the Company improves, the amounts shall be paid without raising any objections as to the limitations for payment of the dues to the petitioner-society. It shall be open to the petitioner-society to approach this Court again as and when the ﬁnancial capacity and position of the respondent company improves. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J August 6, 2008 DSK