Godavari Manar Sakhar Kamgar Union, Shankar Nagar v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others
UNREPORTED
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT
BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
WRIT PETITION NO.1781 OF 2014 Godavari Manar Sakhar Kamgar Union,Shankar Nagar, Tq.
Biloli, Dist.Nanded, through its Vice President, Ramrao S/o Jalbaji Deglure, Age 50 years, Occ.Employee of Respondent No.4-Sugar Factory, R/o Shankar Nagar,Tq.Biloli, Dist.Nanded.
... Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Co-operation and Textile, Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The Commissioner of Sugar, Maharashtra State, Pune-1.
3. The Regional Joint Director of Sugar, Nanded.
4. The Liquidator, Godavari Manar Cooperative Sugar Factory Ltd., Shankar Nagar,Tq. Biloli, Dist.Nanded.
5. The District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd.,
Nanded, through its Managing Director.
6. The Dollex Industries Ltd.
Through its General Manager, 19/1, Maruti Arcade, Indore-452 010 (M.P.).
... Respondents.
...
WRIT PETITION NO.2222 OF 2010.
1. Nilkanth S/o Mohanrao Shinde, Age 52 years,Occ.Employee of Respondent No.4 Sugar Factory,
2. Laxman S/o Marotirao Thadke, Age 56 years, Occ.Employee of Respondent No.4 Sugar Factory.
3. Shaikh Mashroddin Shaikh Hyder, Age 53 years, Occ.
Employer of Respondent No.4Sugar Factory.
4. Shankar S/o Madhavrao Lashkare, Age 52 years, Occ.Employer of Respondent No.4 Sugar factory.
5. Uttam S/o Venkatrao Pawar, Age 51 years, Occ.Employee of Respondent No.4 Sugar Factory.
6. Ramrao S/o Hullaji Farse, Age 57 years, Occ.Employee of Respondent No.4 Sugar Factory.
7. Sambhaji S/o Hanmantrao Marajwade, Age 53 years, Occ.
Employee of Respondent No.4 Sugar Factory.
8. Sayyad Ahmedmiya Pashmiya, Age 53 years,Occ.Employee of Respondent NO.4 Sugar factory.
9. Maroti S/o Manikrao Lokade, Age 54 years, Occ.Employee of Respondent NO.4 Sugar Factory,
10. Madhukar S/o Manikrao Jahagirdar, Age 55 years, Occ.Employee of Respondent No.4 Sugar Factory.
All R/o Shankar Nagar, Tq.
Biloli, Dist.Nanded.
... Petitioners.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Co-operation and Textile Department, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Commissioner of Sugar, Maharashtra State, Pune-1.
3. The Regional Joint Director of Sugar, Nanded.
4. The Liquidator, Godavari Manar Cooperative Sugar Factory Ltd. Shankar Nagar, Taluka Biloli, Dist.
Nanded.
5. The District General Cooperative Bank Ltd., Nanded, through its Managing Director.
6. The Dollex Industries Ltd., through its General Manager, C/o 607, Maker Chamber, V-221, Nariman Point, Mumbai.
... Respondents.
...
Mr.P.G.Rodge, advocate for the petitioners.
Mr.S.G.Sangle, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the State.
Mr.G.D.Kale, advocate for the Respondent No.4. Mr.K.J.Suryawanshi, advocate for Respondent No.5.
...
CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA & V.K.JADHAV,JJ.
Date : 31.07.2015.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.V.Gangapurwala,J.) 1.
Heard.
2.
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
With the consent of the parties, the petitions are taken up for final hearing.
3.
One of the prayer made in W.P.No.1781/2014 is that the Respondents shall not proceed further with auction as per E auction sale notice issued by Respondent No.5 dated 3.2.2015. It has been stated on affidavit by Respondent No.5 that pursuant to the said advertisement, no sale proceedings are taken up. The said relief does not survive.
4.
The petitioners claim to be the Union of Employees, so also the individual workers. The contention is that they have not been paid their legitimate dues. The Respondent-Bank has taken
over the assets under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and is trying to auction the property detrimental to the interest of the workers.
5.
We have heard Mr.N.P.Patil Jamalpurkar, learned counsel, learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader so also Mr.Rodge, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Suryawanshi, learned counsel for the Bank.
6.
It is not disputed that the Karkhana has gone in liquidation. The secured creditors have resorted to the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,2002.
7.
Once the Karkhana is under liquidation and the liquidator is appointed, it is for the liquidator to distribute the assets of the Karkhana, its sale proceeds. The workers can represent before the liquidator about their
rights and about their charge over the sale proceeds It is for the liquidator to consider the claims and distribute the sale proceeds amongst the workers, secured creditors in accordance with the preferential charge and/or pari passu charge. Even Section 13 Sub-Section 9 will be required to be considered by the liquidator, so also provisions of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, and Rules while considering the distribution of sale proceeds. The petitioners also have a remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, in case they are aggrieved by any of the actions of the secured creditors. The petitioners can resort to any of these remedies available under law, in event the petitioners are aggrieved by any further action of the liquidator and/or secured creditors.
8.
Rule accordingly disposed off in terms of above observations and directions. No costs. Sd/- Sd/- (V.K.JADHAV,J.) (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/wp1781.14