Case: Y.C. Zalani and Another Vs. Labour Commissioner and Others

"Having heard learned senior counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the, we deem it fit to adjourn these proceedings to 31st July, 2000In the meantime, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both the sides, the petitioners shall pay at least two months wages, which are not paid for the period from June 1996 to March 1997 to the concerned workmen, on due identification. The said payment shall be made through the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Aurangabad and the said amount shall be deposited with the Dt. Labour .Commissioner, Aurangabad within six weeks from today and on such deposit, the Dy. Labour Commissioner shall on due identification disburse the amount to the concerned workmen." *Admittedly, the said order has not been complied with. The reason given is that a winding up order passed by the BIFR is in appeal before AAIFRThe net result of the proceedigs is this. The BIFR directed winding up of the company. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the AAIFR.

Court's reasoning:
If any scheme is to be framed, the scheme would necessarily have to deal and contain provision for workmens dues. In case a scheme is not framed and winding up order passed by the BIFR is confirmed by the AAIFR, it will be for the Company Court inp proceedings, to pass appropriate orders in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act. Therefore, we do not see any purpose in continuing and keeping these special leave petitions pending.