1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2480 OF 2007 Sakri Taluka Sakhar Kamgar Union, Through its General Secretary, .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents Shri S. T. Shelke, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri K. B. Choudhari, Addl.G.P. for the Respondents No. 1 to 3. Shri R. N. Dhorde, Advocate for the Respondent No. 4. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL, AND N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 21ST APRIL, 2010. ORAL ORDER [Per NARESH H. PATIL, J. ] : . Heard. 2. The petitioner claims to be union of workers who were employed in the liquidated sugar factory namely Shri Panzarkan Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Bhadane, Tq. Sakri, Dist. 2 Dhule. The petitioner challenges the tender notice issued by the respondent No. 4/bank as secured creditor for sale of the factory. The petitioner further prays for direction to pay the unpaid salary of the employees on priority basis. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Shelke submits that liquidator and the bank ought to have acted in the best interest of the employees. The factory could have been leased out to any other organization or institution for running. The counsel further submits that the bank is not empowered in law to sell the factory and to recover the amount disbursed as loan to the factory. 4. The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 filed affidavit in reply. On behalf of respondent No. 4 it is contended that the bank as secured creditor had attached and taken over possession of the sugar factory on 24.01.2004 and the assets are in possession of respondent No. 4/Bank. The public notice of sale of the assets was advertised on 23.10.2006. According to deponent the bank had advanced loan to the tune of Rs. 2676.20 lakh. On behalf of respondent No. 3, the deponent contends that action taken by the respondent No. 4/Bank under the Securatization and 3 Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 is not binding on the respondent No. 3 and the provisions of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and Rules provide total mechanism for the liquidating the assets of the sugar factory. 5. Learned counsel Shri Dhorde places reliance on reported judgment 2007(2) Mh. L. J. 594 in support of his submission that the action taken by the Co-operative Bank in releasing assets cannot be faulted. If the petitioner's plea is accepted, same would go against the letter and spirit of the Securatization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 and would frustrate the attempt of the secured creditor to recover the debts. 6. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. Perused the judgment cited before us. There is no dispute on the point that by way of an interim order liquidator was appointed on 14.03.2002 to govern the affairs of factory and under a final order dated 15.05.2002, the liquidator's appointment was made final. The petitioner filed representation on 27.08.2002. 4 7. Prima facie we do not find any illegality in petitioners' claiming their salary, if they are legally entitled to as employees of the factory. The question is in view of admitted position that factory had gone into liquidation and the provisions of Securatization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 and the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act would start operating in respect of their definite sphere and area of operation. The issue in respect of overriding effect of the Securatization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 is already settled. The liquidator will have to look after the duties assigned to him under law. Even if, the bank is successful in selling assets of the factory, the amount received from the sale proceeds will have to be appropriated in accordance with the priority of the claims as permissible in law. 8. If such contingency arises the members of petitioner Union who were employees of the factory and legally entitled for claim, would be entitled to lodge their grievances in accordance with law with the appropriate authorities. In this view of the matter, we find that continuing interim relief granted in favour of the petitioner would not be in the interest of either of the parties, 5 more so in view of the settled legal position, the petition is required to be disposed of now, which is pending for admission since the year 2007. 9. In view of observations made by us above, the petition stands disposed of. Ad-interim relief granted on 26.04.2007 stand vacated. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] bsb/April 10