J.Devaraj v. Hindustan Photo Films Manufacturing Co., Ltd.,

2025:MHC:368

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 31.01.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY 1.

J.DEVARAJ 2.

M. GOPALRAJ 3.

C. DHARMAR 4.

Y.K. DEVARAJ 5.

S.L. RAJAMANI 6.

K. ARAVINDAN 7.

V. GANESAN 8.

R. SEKAR 9.

A.ALPHONSE 10.

S. HANEEFA 11.

S. GANGADHARAN 12.

D. SEBASTIAN 13.

N. CHANDRAN 14.

V. RADHAKRISHNAN 15.

V.SOUNDARARAJAN 16.

C. JEGANNATHAN 17.

V. SIVALINGAM 18.

K.P. LAWRENCE 19.

M. VISHNU 20.

G. SEKAR 21.

P.KALIAN 22.

R. SHANMUGAM 23.

T. MANAKKANNU 24.

P.K.VIJAYAKUMARI 25.

N. DELHIKUMAR 26.

R. GANDHI 27.

A.CHANDRASEKARAN 28.

R. SRINIVASAN 29.

MUTHUVEERAN 30.

M. SUNDARAM 31.

CHINNATHAMBI 32.

RADHA 1/12

33.

R. SHAJAHAN 34.

I. PALANISAMY 35.

A.K.ASHOK KUMAR 36.

R. GOVINDARAJAN 37.

A. RAMAN 38.

A.K.RAMALINGAM 39.

N. SHANMUGAN 40.

R. DEVADOSS 41.

N. RAJAMANI 42.

B. VIKRAMAN 43.

R.VASANTHA KUMARI 44.

R.RADHAKRISHNAN 45.

K.A.NANJAN 46.

T.GAYATHRI 47.

M. RAJU 48.

M.RANGASWAMY 49.

R. ALLIMUTHU 50.

S. KALU 51.

K.R.SAGADEVAN 52.

C. ILANGOVAN 53.

A.R.KOLLARI 54.

J. STANLEY PETER 55.

G. SHANTHA 56.

A.ANTONY 57.

S.B. MOHANKUMAR 58.

R. VISWANATHAN 59.

N. DEVARAJ 60.

J. FRANCIS 61.

M. PALANISWAMY 62.

L. KRISHNAN 63.

R. KRISHNARAJ 64.

R. NAGARAJAN 65.

J. MANIE 66.

B. SRINIVASAN 67.

S. NANJAN 68.

S. PONMANI 69.

T. JAYARAMAN 70.

R. MAGENDRAN 71.

A. GLADIS MARIA JOSEPH 72.

K. MADHAVAN 73.

R. PARAMASIVAM 74.

SAVITHIRI 75.

O.BALAN 2/12

76.

J. STEPHENRAJ 77.

T. BALAKRISHNAN 78.

S. HALAN 79.

S. VIJAYAKUMAR 80.

M. JOHN DAVID 81.

J. LEONARD 82.

R. DHAMODHARAN 83.

K. HALDORAI 84.

B. SIVAPRAKASAM 85.

G. RAGHUNATHAN 86.

L. SEVANAN 87.

N. YOGESHWARA RAO 88.

C. PARAMASIVAM 89.

M. PARAMESHWARAN 90.

M. CHANDRAN 91.

A. MOHAMED YAKUB 92.

DOREEN D'SOUZA 93.

LAKSHMI 94.

A.M.APPUSWAMY 95.

S. GANAPATHY 96.

J. KANNAN 97.

J. BENJAMIN JAYARAJ 98.

I. TAJUDDIN 99.

V. VEERAMANI 100.

V. MOHAN 101.

M. PALANISAMY 102.

MAIALAGAN 103.

C. ARJUNAN 104.

S. GEORGE 105.

N.P.B. JAGANNATHAN 106.

S.A.D.THIRUNAVUKKARASU 107.

K. JEEVAN 108.

R.MADAN MOHAN 109.

C. CHITRAKALA 110.

S. ILANGOVAN 111.

K. SOORIYAN 112.

G.L.NARASIMHAN 113.

M. BOJAN 114.

M. PRABHU 115.

S. KAMALA 116.

R. JANAKI 117.

R. AZHWAR 118.

CHINNADURAI 3/12

119.

A. THANGAPPAN 120.

K. SELVARAJ 121.

A.DAVID MANOHARAN 122.

D. GUNASEKARAN 123.

R. BHEEMARAJ 124.

K. PRABAKARAN 125.

B. HALDORAI 126.

B. BHEEMAN

127. K.SELVARANI

128. K.KALAISELVI (P127 & P128 - IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 06.02.2025 IN W.M.P.NO. 696/2025 IN W.P.NO. 12462 of 2023 BY DBCJ) ... Petitioners Vs.

1.

Hindustan Photo Films Manufacturing Co., Limited., Indu Nagar, Ootacamund, The Nilgiris, Tamilnadu 643 005.

2.

The Government of India, Rep. by its Joint Secretary, Department of Heavy Industries, Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public enterprises Udyog Bhavan, New Delhi 3.

The Official Liquidator, Hindustan Photo Films Manufacturing Co., Limited, M/s.SPP and Co., Chartered Accountants, No. 27/9, Nivedh Vikas, Pankaja Mill Road, Puliyakulam, Coimbatore - 641 045.

(R3-Impleaded as per order dated 31.01.2025 in W.M.P.No. 33686/2023 in W.P.No. 12462 of 2023 by DBCJ) ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to refund the 4/12

RMA (Recoverable/Refundable Monthly Advance)/SPA (Specific Performance Allowance) /AA (Adjustable Advance) deducted from the petitioners/Workers/employees from their respective VRS benefits within the time stipulated by this Court.

For Petitioners : Mr.S.Mukunth, Senior Counsel Assisted by Mr.V.Sivakumar For R1 & R3 : Mr.A.G.Sathyanarayana For R2 : Mr.Prasad Vijayakumar

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed for a writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to refund the RMA (Recoverable/Refundable Monthly Advance)/SPA (Specific Performance Allowance) /AA (Adjustable Advance) deducted from the petitioners/Workers/employees from their respective VRS benefits.

2. Mr.S.Mukunth, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners would submit that these 123 workmen voluntarily retired from service and are therefore directly covered by paragraph No.24.3 of the order in W.P.No. 24460 of 2013. The said order was also confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the SLP was dismissed by an order dated 5/12

05.05.2022. Subsequently, when the company went into liquidation and a resolution professional was appointed, the Government of India was still willing to settle the amount and sought clarification from the Supreme Court of India. The premises on which the clarification was sought is recorded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its order dated 05.08.2022. The following are the clarification that were sought for:- "Miscellaneous Application Nos. 1273-1275/2022 have now been preferred by Union of India seeking following directions:

(i) pass an order/direction that the payment which is required to be given as loan to the management of HPF in terms of judgment dated 29.11.2016 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras be deposited with the Registrar of Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras and the same be released to the persons entitled to receive the same.

(ii) Pass an order/direction to the Resolution Professional who is presently in-charge of the company, to obtain claims from the 633 ex-employees and after due verification from the records of the company and independent verification by a Chartered Accountant, submit actual requirement of funds to GoI accordingly. (iii) Pass an order/direction to the Resolution Professional to admit claim of GoI to this effect and treat the amount as the first charge over the assets of the company to the Central Government since they step into the shoes of the workmen by taking over to discharge the burden of the company by way of the VRS Scheme."

3. On the said prayer made by the Government of India, the following was the clarification issued by the Honourable Supreme Court of India:- 6/12

"a. The money in terms of the order passed by the High Court as confirmed by this Court, be deposited with the Labour Commissioner, Chennai.

b. The Labour Commissioner shall thereafter issue notice to the concerned workmen and after being satisfied about the identity of the claimants, shall disburse the same to the concerned workmen.

c. The Union of India shall, while making the deposit, give all the details in a Tabular Chart to assist the Labour Commissioner in disbursing the sums.

d. Let the needful be done with six weeks from today e. All the other issues are kept open"

4. In that view of the matter, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners prays that the Government should be directed to release the fund so that they can also approach the Labour Commissioner and receive their benefit.

5. Per contra, Mr.Prasad Vijayakumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent would submit that the workmen have to approach the liquidator and their claims can only be decided as per the mechanism provided under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

6. The learned liquidator would submit that as on date, there is no money that is readily available to be paid to the workman. Even if some 7/12

money comes, that will go only as per Section 53 of IBC.

7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent and the learned liquidator requested time to file a counter affidavit in the matter.

8. I am of the view that though it can be rightly stated that if the money belongs to the first respondent company, namely Hindustan Photo Films Manufacturing Co., Ltd., it has to be disbursed only as per the waterfall mechanism under the IBC and the workmen have to approach the liquidator and file their claims in the appropriate form. If their claims are rejected, they have to approach the Tribunal and they cannot come before this Court. However, in this case, the money doesn't belong to the first respondent company. Considering the extraordinary plight of the workmen, the Government of India on its own came forward to settle the matter for the workmen, which was not within the realm of availability of the funds or otherwise belonging to the first respondent company. It was an extraordinary gesture shown by the Union of India.

8/12

9. From the clarification order, it can be seen that merely because the company went into liquidation, the Union of India did not change its stand. By paragraph (ii) which is extracted above, it is clear that after the appointment of the resolution professional, the Union of India was taking such a stand that the claims of 633 employees, pending as on that date should be verified by an Independent Chartered Accountant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has ordered that instead of Chartered Accountant, the workmen may approach before the Labour Commissioner. Therefore, since the claimants are similarly situated to the aforementioned workmen, nothing prevented these workmen from approaching the Labour Commissioner. They have not approached the Labour Commissioner.

10. When this Court made a suggestion to the learned counsel that these workmen can also approach the Labour Commissioner, Mr.Prasad Vijayakumar, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent raised two specific objections. Firstly, he pointed out that when the Government made its concession at that relevant time, the CIRP was not there. Secondly, he stated that even when the clarification was sought, it was specifically sought with reference to the 633 workmen only. 9/12

11. I am of the view that, while it may be true that the company subsequently went into liquidation and the liquidator was there in picture, it was not an obligation on the part of the Government of India. However, considering the plight of the workmen, the Government of India voluntarily stepped in to settle the matter for the workmen. This was rightly done, because if the workmen had gone through the waterfall mechanism, they might have missed out entirely. The liquidator has to strictly go by Section 54 of the IBC. Therefore, it is for the Union of India to take such a stand before the Labour Commissioner. Suffice it to conclude that when the workmen are claiming rights under the order passed by the Court in W.P.No.24460 of 2013, as confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and clarified by the order dated 05.08.

2022, then they should have made their claim before the Labour Commissioner and should not have approached this Court. I do not see any record that is filed before this Court indicating that they have approached the Labour Commissioner. Therefore, it remains open for these 123 workmen to make such claims before the Labour Commissioner.

of India and decide the matter in accordance with law. The application shall be filed within a period of two weeks from the date of production of the website uploaded order copy of this Court without waiting for the certified copy. Upon the filing of such an application, the Labour Commissioner shall decide the matter in the manner known to law within 16 weeks from that date.

12. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. 31.01.2025 4/4 nsl D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

nsl To The Joint Secretary, Department of Heavy Industries, Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public enterprises Udyog Bhavan, New Delhi 11/12

31.01.2025 4/4 12/12