Kbp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION. APPEAL NO.30 OF 2009 IN COMPANY PETITION NO.369 OF 2003 WITH COMPANY APPLICATION NO.1166 OF 2007 IN COMPANY PETITION NO.369 OF 2003 327 claimant workers of the Company S.L.M. Maneklal Industries Ltd., now known as SLM Industries Ltd. ..Applicant Vs. S.L.M. Maneklal Industries Ltd. (Now SLM Industries Ltd.) and ors. ..Respondents ......... Mr.U.M.Bhardwaj, Advocate for appellant. None for respondent. ......... CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE &. S.J.VAZIFDAR,JJ. DATE : June 22, 2009. P.C. 1] Heard Mr.Bharadwaj, learned Counsel for appellants who are workers of respondent No.1 - Company. The Company had financial difficulties and, therefore, it was referred for revival to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (B.I.F.R.), which recommended its winding up and consequently Company Petition No.369 of 2003 has been admitted before this Court. The Company Application No.1166 of 2007 was taken up in the said petition and orders came to be passed from time to time. It was prayed on behalf of the Company to drop the proceedings and that the recommendation made by the B.I.F.R. be set aside. The learned Company Judge did not accept these contentions, by the impugned order. 2] It appears that on the Notices being issued these appellants appeared before the learned Company Judge and submitted their claims. It is stated that out of total workers in the company, 1300 workers’ claim was settled as per the contentions of the company. This was disputed and it appears that appellants wanted the claims to be adjudicated upon by the Official Liquidator and this prayer has been dealt with in the impugned order stating that such relief would be claimed after winding up order is passed. The learned Counsel for appellants claims that it is not necessary to wait for winding up orders and the Official Liquidator himself can adjudicate upon the claims submitted by the workers. In support of this contention, he has relied upon the decision in the case of Sudarshan Chits (India) Limited Vs. G.Sukumaran Pillai and others [A.I.R. 1984 SC 1579] He has also referred to an order passed by the B.I.F.R., dated 20th March, 2009 wherein the Board has directed that the workers whose dues have not been paid by the Company may approach the Official Liquidator for necessary relief. 3] In the case of Sudarshan [Supra] the order of winding up passed by the High Court was under challenge in Appeal and in the said Appeal a plea was taken that when the winding up order was stayed by the Court, the appellate Court will have no jurisdiction to deal with the order adjudicating workers’ claim and while repelling this submission, Their Lordships in paragraph No.14 observed as under : “ 14. Now if the winding up order was merely held in abeyance i.e. it was not operative for the time being, but it had not ceased to exist, the winding up proceedings are in fact pending and the Court which made the winding up order would be the Court which is winding up the Company. It is now well-settled that a winding up order once made can be revoked or recalled but till it is revoked or recalled it continues to subsist. That is the situation in this case. If the winding up order is subsisting and so the Court which made that order or the Court which kept it in abeyance will have jurisdiction to give necessary directions to the provisional Liquidator to take recourse to Section 446(2).” 4] Thus, the Official Liquidator may be entitled to adjudicate the workers dues even now. The petition is due to be heard shortly. We are satisfied that in the facts of the present case the order impugned in this Appeal does not call for any re-consideration and no prejudice has been caused to the appellants. The impugned order need not be taken as withdrawing the jurisdiction of the Official Liquidator to adjudicate upon the workers’ claim. With these observations, present Appeal stands dismissed. (S.J.VAZIFDAR,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)