THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.NO. 5785 of 2010 15-03-2010 BETWEEN; Parkins Textiles Labour Union, rep. by its General Secretary K.Chandrasekhar ...Petitioner vs. The Indian Bank,ARMP, Coimbattore, Tamilnadu and others ...Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.NO.5785 of 2010 ORAL ORDER: (Per GR,J) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and S A.Satyanarayana the learned counsel for th respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The sale proclamation issued under Rule 6(2) and 8(6) of the Security Interes (Enforcement) Rules 2002 by the 1st respondent notifying sale of the secured asset, a immoveable property and the structures therein as well as the stocks, plant an machinery of a mill in T.R.Kandriga Village, Nagari, Puttur Taluk, Chittoor belonging t M/s.Parkins textiles (P) Limited (the borrower) is assailed by the petitioner, which is labour union representing the labour working in the mill. Initially, the 1st respondent-Bank (the secured creditor) had submitted a recover application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under the provisions of the Recovery o Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act,1993 (for short “the 1993 Act”). Th Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore issued a recovery certificate i T.A.No.462 of 2002 vide recovery certificate No.DRC 49/07, dated 06-06-2007 fo enabling recovery of the dues to the secured creditor in an amount of Rs.3,48,01,609.91. The bank took possession of the secured assets on 09-08-200 and proceeded to initiate process for sale of the properties. The petitioner filed W.P.No.9585 of 2008 before the Madras High Court against th respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein and that Court passed an interim order on 21-04-200 directing that the auction proposed (under the DRT Act) can go on but the confirmatio of any sale shall be stayed until further orders (para.4 of the writ petition). It would appear from the impugned proceedings of sale dated 16-02-2010 tha thereafter the secured creditor initiated proceedings under the Securitisation an Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ( fo short “the 2002 Act”). After the preliminary process of notice under Section 13(2) of th 2002 Act, the secured creditor took possession of the property under the provisions o Sec.13(4) of the 2002 Act and issued the impugned sale notification, notifying sale o the secured assets. It is pleaded by the petitioner and strenuously reiterated by the learned counsel fo the petitioner that the members of the petitioner-union are workmen of M/s Parkin textiles (P) Limited, have been subjected to illegal lockout of the factory premises, ther are substantial dues payable by the management and that these dues, in view of th provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 and Section 529-A of the Companie Act,1956 have to be treated as prioritized liabilities of the management or at least should rank pari passu with the liability of the borrower-industry to the secured credito Bank. It is the admitted and demonstrable scenario that no liquidation proceedings hav been initiated against the borrower- M/s Parkins textiles (P) Limited and therefore th provisions of Section 529-A of the Companies Act, 1956 have no application though the second proviso to Sec.13 (9) of the 2002 Act enables the secured credito when a company that is being wound up to retain the sale proceeds of his secure assets after depositing the workmen’s dues with the liquidator in accordance with th provisions of Sec.529-A of the Companies Act,1956, if the secured creditor instead o his relinquishing his security and proving his debt under proviso to sub-section (1) o Section 529 of the Companies Act,1956 opts to realise his security under th provisions of the 2002 Act. The liability, if any owed by the management to its workme under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (as claimed by the petitione are not enjoined to be a prioritised liability on the borrower (secured assets) under th provisions of the 2002 Act. On the aforesaid analysis, none of the contentions urged by the petitioner mer acceptance by this Court, nor has the petitioner put forth any substantial or lega submission, which warrants interdiction of the impugned proceedings for proclamatio of sale of the secured assets, which are mortgaged towards the loan availed by M/ Parkins textiles (P) Limited from the 1st respondent-Bank There are no merits. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed at the stage o admission. No order as to costs. ______________ GODA RAGHURAM,J __________________ NOUSHAD ALI,J 15TH MARCH 2010. TSNR