Case: Cement Workers Karamchari Sangh Vs. M/S Jaipur Udyog Ltd.

the company had paid to them the total sum of Rs.15.18 crores. The report further noted that according to the list furnished by the company 1173 workmen of the cement factory, 457 at Phallodi Quarry and 136 at Kanpur had not accepted the settlement and the total amount due to them under the settlement was Rs.10.23 crores. (Here it may be stated that before Justice Mathur one of the workmens union claimed that the lawful dues of the workers amounted to Rs.86 crores but the settlement was made for only 20-25 crores). 32. Mr.Rohatgi strongly contended that all the workmen who had received payment had done so in full and final settlement of their claims and they could no longer question the agreement. Those who had not accepted payments under the settlement were free to raise their claims in accordance with law but they too could not object to the settlement between the company and the other workmen who had accepted payments. 33. Interestingly, after the hearing of the case was closed yet another petition (I.A.No.15) was filed on behalf of GDCL on February 21, 2008 which was listed before the Court on February 29, 2008. In this petition, the company, making a complete departure from its earlier stand in regard to the settlement, stated as follows: The applicant submits that while the judgment has been reserved in the captioned matter, the applicant wants to put the controversy at rest and submits that, the applicant is ready and willing to get the dues of the workers, including those who have singed the settlement with the Respondent No.1 - Jaipur Udyog Ltd., to be adjudicated upon by any statutory authority appointed by this Honble Court. The applicant is filing the present application without prejudice to the arguments made before this Honble Court on 07.02.2008. The applicant submits that the present application is being made bona fide and in the interest of justice and in the interest of workers. Following the above statement, the prayer is made as follows: (a) Direct any statutory authority to adjudicate on the dues of the said workers, including those who have signed the settlement with the Respondent No.1 - Jaipur Udyog Ltd. within a period of two months; and (b) Pass an order as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper considering the facts and circumstances of the present case. By filing this petition JUL/GDCL, of its own accord, opens up the claims of all the workmen and makes a positive gesture in an attempt to satisfy the court that it has no intent to run away with the lawful claims of the workmen. 34. On hearing counsel for the parties and on a careful consideration of the materials on record, including the affidavits and documents filed by the different parties, we are of the opinion that the AAIFR can hardly be blamed for proceeding with the hearing of the appeal on September 6, 2001. If there was a communication gap between the High Court and the AAIFR it was due to the omission to correctly record the interim order of the High Court. The order that was produced before the AAIFR did not indicate that the proceeding of the appeal before it was stayed. The parties (creditors of the company) were strongly opposed to any adjournment. Under the circumstances, the AAIFR was within its rights to disallow the prayer for adjournment on behalf of JUL and to ask its counsel to make submissions on merits. We, therefore, feel that the strong displeasure against the AAIFR expressed by the High Court in its order of September 12, 2001 was quite uncalled for. We are further of the view that since the counsel for the appellant GUL declined to make submissions in support of the appeal even though repeatedly asked by the AAIFR, after the request for adjournment was turned down, there was no breach of the principles of natural justice. Having regard to the communication gap resulting from the mistake in recording its interim order, the High Court might have been justified in asking the AAIFR to pass a fresh order after giving the appellant JUL an opportunity of hearing. But the High Court was clearly in error in setting aside the final order passed by the AAFIR on the ground that it was passed in breach of the audi alteram partem rule. 35. We find much substance in the grievance raised by the respondent creditors and the workmen in regard to the delay in the final disposal of the matter. It is quite true that the delay only benefits JUL/GDCL and causes great prejudice to the creditors and deep distress to the workmen. We are also conscious that seven years have passed by while the matter lay pending, first before the High Court and then before this court. Had the appeal not come to this court, the matter in all probability would have been concluded by now. 36. But for all this we are unable to overlook that JUL/GDCL were practically denied the remedy of appeal against the winding up order passed by the BIFR. We recall here the hackneyed but very useful maxim: justice should not only be done but it should also appear to have been done. We are, therefore, of the view that at least one chance should be afforded to JUL/GDCL to place their case before the AAIFR. 37. We are further of the view that central to the issue of rehabilitation or winding of the company is the question of the workmens dues. The dues of all other creditors are ascertainable without difficulty. But in case of the workmens dues there is great divergence between the claim of the workmen and what is accepted by the companys management. It is, therefore necessary to get the workmens dues authoritatively determined. Once the workmens dues too are known precisely that can be factored into a realistic revival scheme or accounted for in the winding up process, in case the eventuality arises.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]34. On hearing counsel for the parties and on a careful consideration of the materials on record, including the affidavits and documents filed by the different parties, we are of the opinion that the AAIFR can hardly be blamed for proceeding with the hearing of the appeal on September 6, 2001. If there was a communication gap between the High Court and the AAIFR it was due to the omission to correctly record the interim order of the High Court. The order that was produced before the AAIFR did not indicate that the proceeding of the appeal before it was stayed. The parties (creditors of the company) were strongly opposed to any adjournment. Under the circumstances, the AAIFR was within its rights to disallow the prayer for adjournment on behalf of JUL and to ask its counsel to make submissions on merits. We, therefore, feel that the strong displeasure against the AAIFR expressed by the High Court in its order of September 12, 2001 was quite uncalled for. We are further of the view that since the counsel for the appellant GUL declined to make submissions in support of the appeal even though repeatedly asked by the AAIFR, after the request for adjournment was turned down, there was no breach of the principles of natural justice. Having regard to the communication gap resulting from the mistake in recording its interim order, the High Court might have been justified in asking the AAIFR to pass a fresh order after giving the appellant JUL an opportunity of hearing. But the High Court was clearly in error in setting aside the final order passed by the AAFIR on the ground that it was passed in breach of the audi alteram partem rule35. We find much substance in the grievance raised by the respondent creditors and the workmen in regard to the delay in the final disposal of the matter. It is quite true that the delay only benefits JUL/GDCL and causes great prejudice to the creditors and deep distress to the workmen. We are also conscious that seven years have passed by while the matter lay pending, first before the High Court and then before this court. Had the appeal not come to this court, the matter in all probability would have been concluded by now36. But for all this we are unable to overlook that JUL/GDCL were practically denied the remedy of appeal against the winding up order passed by the BIFR. We recall here the hackneyed but very useful maxim: justice should not only be done but it should also appear to have been done. We are, therefore, of the view that at least one chance should be afforded to JUL/GDCL to place their case before the AAIFR37. We are further of the view that central to the issue of rehabilitation or winding of the company is the question of the workmens dues. The dues of all other creditors are ascertainable without difficulty. But in case of the workmens dues there is great divergence between the claim of the workmen and what is accepted by the companys management. It is, therefore necessary to get the workmens dues authoritatively determined. Once the workmens dues too are known precisely that can be factored into a realistic revival scheme or accounted for in the winding up process, in case the eventuality arises.