# SHIVANAND GAURISHANKAR BASWANTI v. LAXMI - **Citation:** [2008] 10 S.C.R. 782 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 2008-07-11 - **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 4324 of 2008 - **Bench:** C.K. Thakker, D.K. Jain - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/shivanand-gaurishankar-baswanti-v-laxmi-23377 - **Pages:** 38 ## Headnote Constitution .of India, 1950: ··Articles 136 and 226 - Company declared sick under C the sick lndius Oriat Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1.985 ·(SICA) - Bi FR opining for winding up of the Company - Offer for pwchase of property of ·the Company - In joint meetings .. . between the sick company, proposed purchaser, secured and unsecured creditors and the Representative Union of workD men, agreement by the creditors -an.d workers to accept lesser amount of the dues as one time settlement- PIL by one of the workers . challenging the. agreement, disposed of with direction to ?pproach appropriate forum - Subsequent writ petition ·by the worker challenging the settlement dismissed as not E maintainable - On appeal, . held: The appellant has no locus standi to address the grievance - All the workers were bound by the decision taken by the Representative Union - Industrial employee has no right to represent the workmen - The grievance should have been addressed before appropriate F forum and not under Article 226 of the Constitution - In the facts of the case the course taken for se_ttlement was appropriate and was not contrary to law - Decision taken by the Union does not suffer from any infirmity - Hence, in view of the facts of the case, interference under Article 136 not called for - G Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1947 - ss. 14, 27A and 30. Article 136 - Discretionary jurisdiction - Scope of - Held: Discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 has to be tampered with equity - The Court to .exercise the jurisdiction only if extraordinary flaws or grave injustice or other recognized grounds, H 782 ' , SHIVANAND GAURISHANKAR BASWANTI v. LAXMI 783 ... -+ VISHNU TEXTILES MILLS & ORS . are made out - Court not to act as a regular court of appeal. A Respondent No. 1-Company, incurred heavy losses and was closed down. Proceedings had been initiated under SICA. BIFR initially had restrained the management from disposing or transferring the assets without its prior B permission, but finally it recommended winding up of the Company. In favour of one of the major creditors (State Bank of India) Debts Recovery Tribunal (ORT) passed a decree for Rs. 84.39 crores with interest. Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act passed orders in favour of the workers directing ·the respondent-Company c to pay the gratuity with interest. Since the respondentCompany was not in a position to pay the entire dues, ORT ordered to take steps to hold a joint meeting of all the financial institutions an~ representatives of workers in order to settle the matter. In the meantime, respondent D No. 7 expressed its willingness to purchase the property for Rs. 46.65 crores .. A tripartite agreement had been arrived at between the respondent-Company, respondent No.8-representative Union of workers and respondent No. 7 purchaser. As the property owned by the respondentE Company was not enough to meet all the liabilities, workers Union agreed to accept an amount of Rs. 22.21 crores towards full and final settlement as against the claim of Rs. 132 crores. In a subsequent joint meeting of secured -y and unsecured creditors, it was agreed that they would F share the sale proceeds of Rs. 46.65 crores by One Time Settlement foregoing their claim for the entire amount. Incidentally property was sold to respondent No. 7. Appellant (a workman) on coming to know about the agreements, submitted a representation to High Court ncern had. been shown by the appellant' would .·have stJffered .. It vvas because of conjoint and combined· effortS of an the partiestti~t agreements could be arrived at· .. arid workmen were··able to get the .. ~mouritwhichhad E no~ been paid to them for many years. The contentionthat secure,4 and m1secured · c.reditors and workers have not receiv~d their dues .has no· force. If>ara 281[804•8,C,D,E] . . . . . ·• '. ··, .. . :. ~·· .... ' . SHIVANAND GAURISHANKAR BASWANTI v. LAXMI 787 VISHNU TEXTILES MILLS & ORS. High Court, therefore, was right in dismissing it in limine A by passing the impugned order that it was not a fit case to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. [Para 17] [798-8,C,D,E] 4.1 Neither by a secured nor an unsecured creditor. nor a representative of a labour union; nor even a person B acting pro bona publico has approached this Court. PIL Writ Petition at the instance of the appellant was dismissed by the High Court and the said decision was never challenged by him. Here is an employee who is also one of the workers, who has been paid his dues. He accepted C : the amount and issued 'No Objection Certificate' (No Dues Certificate) -no doubt by putting an endorsement "Accepted under Protest". He has urged that the workmen have not been paid their dues and injustice had been done to them. Even there, the appellant is not right. A RepreD sentative Union has taken a decision which is binding on all employees. [Para 29] [804-E,FG] NGEF Ltd. v. Chandra Developers (P) Ltd., 2005 (8) SCC 219; Pankaj Mehra v. State of Maharashtra, 2000 (2) SCC E. 756 - referred to. Gray's Inn Construction Co. Ltd., Re, 1980 (1) All ER 814 : 1980 (1) WLR 711 - referred to. 4.2 Under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, - -x it is the 'Representative Union' which has all powers to F enter into a settlement on behalf of workers in the industry and it is only that Union which can take a decision under the Act. The said decision would bind not only the members of the Union, but also to those workers who are not members of such Union. Representative Union is having priority and 'preference' over other Unions to appear ..._ + on behalf of employees of such industry in the area. [Paras 32 and 37] [805-F,G, 805-G, 807-G, 808-A] Girja Shankar Kashi Ram v. Gujarat Spinning and Weav- 788 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R. A ing Co. Ltd., (1962) Supp 2 SCR 890; Textile Labour Association, Bhadra, Ahmedabad v. Ahmedabad Mill Owners Association, Ahmedabad, 1970 (3) SCC 890; Santuram Khudai v. Kimatrai Printers and Processors Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., 1978 (1) sec 162, - relied on. 8 4.3 Combined reading of Sections 27A, 30, 32, 33 and 80 of the Act make it clear that consistent with the avowed policy and prevention of exploitation of workmen and augmen~tion of their bargaining power, the Legislature has clothed the Representative Union ~ith plenary power to C appear or act on behalf of employees in any proceeding under the Act. Keeping in view the said object, it has deprived individual employees or workmen of the right to appear or act in any proceeding under the Act where the Representative Union enters appearance or acts as repreD sentative of the employees. [Para 45] [815-8,C,D] 4.4 Mala tides or bona tides of the Representative Union has no relevance in construing the relevant provisions of the Act. In case the employees find that the Representative Union is acting in a manner which is prejudicial to their E interests, their remedy lies in invoking the aid of the Registrar under Chapter Ill of the Act requesting him to cancel the registration of the union. In the instant case in the local area concerned respondent No. 8 is admittedly the only Union which has the status of Representative Union in F Textile Industry under the Act. In view of the above fact, no other Union/Assocjation of employees or individual empioyees have right to represent the workmen of that industry in that area. [Paras 46 and 47] [815-E,FG,, 8_16-A] G 4.5 There were about 4500 employees in respondent No.1-Mill when it was closed down in February, 1995. Within a period of about a decade, 400 workmen had already died. None of them, however, received any wages or other benefits because of the pendency of several proceedings in different courts .. The Representative Union H Y, SHIVANAND GAURISHANKAR BASWANTI v. LAXMI 789 • -+ VISHNU .TEXTILES MILLS & ORS. [C.K. THAKKER, J.] considered'. their legitimate grievance and thought it A proper toge'~ the matter settled if reasonable amount could be paid to them, keeping in view well-known saying "one in hand is better than two on bush". They considered the matter in its entirety, financial condition of the first respon- -y dent-Company, claim of secured and unsecured creditors, B a number of decrees and orders passed by various Authoriti~s under different laws and the properties of the Company. In the larger interest, the Union decided to accept the amount of Rs.22.21 crores for workers towards full and final settlement. By no stretch of imagination, such c action could be held improper, illegal or mala fide. The approach adopted and decision taken by the Representative Union-respondent No.8 suffers from no infirmity and cannot be regarded as illegal or otherwise unreasonable. [Para 48] [816-A,8,C,D,E] D CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4324 of 2008 From the ·Judgment and final Order dated 12.2.2007 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in W.P. No. 5664/2006 E K.V. Vishwanathan, Goutam Godara and Gopal Balwant Sathe for the Appellant. Anil Diwan, Shekhar Nephade, S. Ganesh, Santosh Paul, M.J. Paul, V.8. Joshi, Kailash Pandey, Vinay Navare, Abha R. -) Sharma, Aparajita Singh, Sanjay V. Kharde, Asha Gopalan Nair, F C.G. Solshe; Vinesh C. Solshe, Malvika Trivedi, T. Mahipal, Arvind Gupta, John Mathew and C.K. Sasi for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by C.K. THAKKER, J. 1. Leave granted. G ...... + 2. The present appeal is directed against summary dismissal of writ petition No. 5664 of 2006 on February 12, 2007 by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay observing that it was not a fit case to entertain the petition in exercise of extraordiH 790 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R. +. . ._ A nary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 3. The case has a chequered history and with a view to appreciate the contentions raised by the parties, .the background B is required to be kept in view; Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills ('Comy pany" for short)+respondent No, 1 herein was formerly known as Vishnu Cotton Mills Ltd. It was registered on May 19, 1908 under the.Indian Companies Act, 1873 (then in force). It was operating through two cotton textile mills, namely, (i) Laxmi Mill, c and (ii) Vishnu Mill. Somewhere inthe year 1961, Laxmi Mill was merged in Vishnu Mill and was given the present name i.e. LaxmiVishnu Textile Mills Ltd.There were large number of workers in the mill and there was considerable profit in the business. By the passage of time, however, the Company started incur~ D ring losses and things turned worse in later eighties. Proceed-. ings under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) + Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to 'SICA') had been initiated. On April 28, 1994, the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, New Delhi ('BIFR' for short) issued an order declaring E the Company as 'sick unit' and in exercise of powers conferred on it under Section 22A of the Act, it restrained the promoters/ management from disposing or transferring its assets described in the order without prior permission of the Board. It was also stated that violation of the order passed by the Board would be dealt with under Section 33 of SICA. F 4. It is also the case of the appellant that without issuing ,._ notice and without obtaining permission from the Appropriate Authority as required under Sections 25-0 and 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the management of the Company G resorted to illegal closure and lockout of the Company. Thus, from February 28, 1995, the Company is illegally closed. 5. According to the appellant, BIFR considered the facts ~)>. and circumstances of the case in their entirety and on December 30, 1996 passed an order recording its satisfaction as reH SHIVANAND GAURISHANKAR BASWANTI v. LAXMI 791 . ~...;. VISHNU TEXTILES MILLS & ORS. [C.K. THAKKER, J.] quired by sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Act that it was not A possible for the Company to revive and it was just and equitable that Company should be wound up. The opinion was for-· warded to the High Court of Judicature at Bombay with a request that banks and financial institutions may explore the possibility of sale of the assets of the Company. It was proposed to B entrust the work of sale of assets to State Bank of India (SBI), the lead bank in the case. The Operative Agency (OA), namely, I DBI was directed to hold a joint meeting of all participating banks and financial institutions and to furnish a detailed report on sale of assets of the Company through SBI latest by February 28, c 1997. 6. It may be stated at this stage that SBI was one of the major creditors. It initiated recovery proceedings against the Company by filing Original Application No. 2638 of 1999 and + got a decree from Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT)-1, Mumbai D for a sum of Rs.84.39 crores with interest. Other financial institutions had also initiated proceedings for recovery of their dues. Receiver was appointed by DRT-1, Mumbai, who took possession of the properties of the Comrany. Steps were also taken to protect properties by employing police force. The Receiver E also met representatives of Rashtriya Girni Kamgar Sangh, recognized Union-respondent No.8 herein. The Receiver was in possession of the property except those properties which were occupied by the employees who were in service of the Com- - ); pany and were residing in the quarters provided to them while F they were in employment. Possession of the machinery and other movable properties of the Company was also taken over. Since the dues of workers were neither settled nor paid, several workers approached Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 for gratuity. Orders were passed in G their favour directing the Company to pay full amount of gratuity """'-+ with interest thereon. The said amount was also not paid. Meanwhile, Trans Asia Global Company-respondent No.7 expressed its desire to purchase the property. According to the appellant, respondent No.8-Union had no authority to repreH 792 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R. A sent the interests of workers of respondent No.1-Company and yet on March 8, 2005, it purportedly entered into a tripartite ,,. agreement with respondent No.1-Company, respondent No.8-Union and respondent No.7-M/s Trans Asia Global Company. Respondent No.1-Company under the tripartite agreement s sold the property to respondent No. 7 for Rs.46.65 crores. The Y claim of the workmen was settled at Rs.22.21 crores whereas in fact, the claim of the workmen was more thanHs.132 crores. The purported agreement never brought to the notice of the workmen and they were kept in complete dark. The property of C the Company was worth Rs.250 crores which could have satisfied claims of SBI, legitimate dues of the workmen as also of financial institutions and other creditors. According to the appellant, the other agreement was also entered into between secured and unsecured creditors, labour representatives, the 0 Company and the purchaser on April 20, 2005. The agreement + states that all secured creditors, unsecured creditors and representatives of the workmen had a meeting and they all agreed on One Time Settlement (OTS) and accepted the scheme of selling the entire property by a private treaty to respondent No. 7 and accordingly the property was sold. The action, however, E was totally illegal, uncalled for and in contravention of various provisions of law. P/L WRIT PETITION 7. According to the appellant, as soon as he came to know F about the above agreements, sale of property by private negotiations and without taking workers in confidence, he submitted a representation to the Chief Justice of High Court of Bombay pointing out several illegalities committed by respondent No.1Company in not settling the dues of workmen. The representaG tion was converted into Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and was registered as PIL Writ Petition No. 126 of 2005. The appellant herein filed an affidavit in the said petition on June 27, 2006. The writ petition came up for hearing before a Division Bench - of the High Court on July 13, 2006 and after hearing learned H counsel for the parties, the writ petition was disposed of by the SHIVANAND GAURISHANKAR BASWANTI v. LAX.Ml 793 1~ VISHNU TEXTILES MILLS & ORS. [C.K. THAKKER, J.] Court observing that the grievance of the workers could be reA dressed before 'appropriate forum'. The complaint against sale of property by private treaty also could be adjudicated in 'proper proceedings' and the controversy did not deserve to be taken into PIL. Liberty, however, was granted by the Court to all aggrieved parties to pursue 'appropriate remedy' for redressal of B their grievances. PRESENT WRIT PETITION 8. The appellant, thereafter, filed present Writ Petition No. 5664 of 2006 in the High Court of Bombay under Article 226 of c the Constitution and prayed for a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing all the actions in the matter of recovery proceedings before the Recovery Officer, Mumbai Debt Recovery Tribunal No.1 and by examining the validity, propriety and correctness of such proceedings and to D quash and set aside order of sale of properties-movable and immovable-of respondent No.1-Company in favour of respondent No. 7. A writ of mandamus was sought directing DRT1, Mumbai not to disburse any amount to anyone till the claims of the workers have been properly adjudicated and the amount E paid. A prayer was made to continue to employ all workers till their services are legally terminated or till lawful closure is etfected. Interim relief was also prayed. ORDER OF HIGH COURT - >: 9. The High Court, as observed above, dismissed the writ F petition observing that it was not a fit case to interfere with by an order dated February 12, 2007 in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The said order is challenged by the appellant in this appeal. 10. Notice was issued by this Court on September 7, 2007 G ""~- and meanwhile order passed by DRT was stayed. Affidavits and further affidavits were thereafter filed by the parties. The Registry was directed to place the matter for final disposal and that is how the matter is before us. H 794 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R. +-.\ A · 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. APPELLANT'S SUBMISSIONS 12. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that all . orders passed and actions taken by the Authorities are unlawB ful, illegal and contrary to law. It was submitted that the first rey spondent-Company had resorted to illegal closure and unlawful lockout due to which workers had suffered a lot. It was also submitted that when proceedings had been initiated under SICA and an·order was passsd by BIFR restraining the management c of the 1st respondent-Company from transferting, alienating or disposing its property, no action could have been taken for sale of the property. Apart from the factthat such action is Illegal and in violation ofthe order passed by BIFR, it is also contrary to law and is punishable under Section 33 of SICA. A grievance D was also made that though there were several secured and unsecured creditors and more than 4,000 workers, whose dues + r had not been paid, they were never taken in confidence and private settlement had been arrived at. Such action could not be said to be legal or in consonance with law. Moreover, the E property of the 1st respondent-Company which is worth more than Rs.250 crores had been sold away by a 'throw away' price of less than Rs.50 crores. It has prejudicially affected the interest of families of thousands of workers who would have otherwise got their legitimate dues but for the illegal settlement by F 'interested' persons. According to the appellant, most of the workers were not in favour of so called settlement of accep- ;\- tance of an amount of Rs.22.21 crores towards full and final settlement of their dues when they were actually entitled to six times more the said amount. Respondent No.8 could not have represented all the workers and entered into such settlement G ·by accepting less than 20% of their dues. According to the appellant, most of the workers have objection against such settlement and they have supported the appellant and several em- ~ .... - ployees had expressed their opinion in writing to that effect. The appellant had stated that when he came to know about the H decree passed by ORT and execution proceedings in pursu- SHIVANAND GAURISHANKAR BASWANTI v. LAXMI 795 ~~ VISHNU TEXTILES MILLS & ORS. [C.K. THAKKER, J.] ance of the said decree and sale of property, he drew the attenA tion of the Hon'ble Chief Justice of High Court of Bombay by making a representation which was treated as PIL Writ Petition. The High Court ought to have granted relief in that proceeding. The High Court, however, disposed of the writ-petition -y by granting liberty to the parties to take appropriate proceedB ings in accordance with law. The appellant, therefore, filed fresh petition but the High Court by a 'cryptic' order; dismissed the same without entering into the merits of the matter. It was, therefore, submitted by the appellant that the impugned order passed by the High Court deserves to be set aside quashing and set- c ting aside the order of sale in favour of respondent No. 7 and by directing the authorities to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. RESPONDENTS' SUBMISSIONS -+ 13. The contesting respondents, on the other hand, strongly D urged that the appeal deserves to be dismissed and no interference by this Court is called for. The appellant has no locus standi to file a petition either in the High Court or to prefer an appeal in this Court. It was contended that respondent No.1E Company was in continuous loss since several years and in the year 1995, it was closed,down. Crores of rupees were required to be paid to State Bank of India, other financial institutions as also to workers. Proceedings had been initiated under SI.CA - }-. and BIFR was satisfied that the Company could not be revived and it favoured winding up of the Compny. A decree was passed F in favour of SBI by DRT-1, Mumbai for substantial amount of more than Rs.80 crores with interest. Over and above the said amount, there were other secured and unsecured creditors. Moreover, outstanding dues of workers were also there. Movable and immovable property of the Company was not enough G ....\ .l_ to clear up all the dues. It was, therefore, felt that a fair settlement could be arrived at so that all the parties could get an equitable share and proper and reasonable amount from the property owned and possessed by respondent No.1-Company. It is in the light of the above facts that the parties i.e., (i) Company; H •t 796 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R. ~- t li A (ii) Secured and unsecured creditors; and (iii) Union sat to- . " gether, discussed the problem and settled the matter. SBI which 1t .,. was having a decree for Rs.84 crores with interest thereon, )o agreed to let go substantial part of the amount so that workers may not be prejudicially affected. Other creditors also adopted B positive and constructive attitude. The Union considered the fate of families of several workers and in the capacity of 'Representative Union' under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 exercised the power and agreed to the settlement. In fact, it " was the case of respondent No.7-Union that during the interc vening period of about one decade after the closur~ of the Mills in 1995, about 400 workers died. If settlement wo'uld not have been arrived at, it would have resulted into further agony to the remaining workers and their families as also the families of those workers who lost their lives during the pendency of proD ceedings. It was in these circumstances that the best solution + had been thought by way of settlement and no fault can be found against Representative Union in agreeing to such settlement. 14. It was also submitted that under the Act of 1946, it is the Representative Union which alone has exclusive right in any E industry to represent the entire class of workmen in the local area. The appellant had no locus or standing to agitate grievance or raise dispute on behalf of workers/labourers. But, even otherwise,.arepresentation which was treated as PIL Writ Petition was dismissed by the High Court and that order had never F been challenged by the appellant by approaching this Court and ;}. - the decision had become final. It was contended that from the Iorder of the Court it was very clear that liberty was granted to aggrieved parties to take appropriate remedy, in appropriate ,. forum in appropriate proceedings. The appellant, however, nei- .. G ther approached Labour Forum nor went to Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal but filed a fresh writ-petition. Obviously, the subsequent petition in which the impugned order Is passed was ).f not PIL as it was registered as Writ Petition instituted by an individual. The High Court was. therefore, wholly right and fully H justified in dismissing the said petition in limine, particularly in 1~ f• SHIVANAND GAURISHANKAR BASWANTI v. LAXMI 797 fi~ VISHNU TEXTILES MILLS & ORS. [C.K. THAKKER, J.] the light of the order passed in previous PIL Writ Petition. A i --r 15. It was submitted that the situation today is irreversible inasmuch as after the settlement had been arrived at between the parties, the purchaser-respondent No.7 had deposited the entire purchase price with ORT. The secured creditors as well B ---( as labourers were paid their dues as per the said settlement and their respective shares. Creditors had issued 'discharge certificates'. The Assistant Labour Commissioner had disbursed the amount to the workers and their family members who are more than four thousand. The appellant who was also one of the workers was paid more than Rs.60,000/- and he issued a c receipt in token of acceptance of the said amount. The order of • sale in favour of respondent No. 7 was confirmed by ORT and the sale became final. Sale certificate was also issued in favour of the purchaser. It had also paid an amount of Rs.2.25 crores --\ -+ towards stamp duty and got the property registered in its name. D All those orders were never challenged by the appellant by taking 'appropriate proceedings'. If at this stage, this Court interferes and sets aside the orders passed by the authorities from time to time, irreparable injury and loss would be caused not only to the purchaser-respondent No. 7, but to other respondents E as well. For instance, it would be very difficult for the workers who had received the amount to refund or pay back the said amount which would be the direct consequence. It would be difficu It for respondent No. 7 also if it will not be able to recover the - .k amount which it ~as paid. Moreover, no secured or unsecured F creditor has come forward and has made a.complaint to this Court that though he was entitled to a particular amount, he had not .;- been paid and he has grievance against the settlement. The appellant who is only one pecson and has received his dues, has approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution G after dismissal of Public Interest Litigation and it is he who con- .. ,,,.\ tends that several creditors have not been paid their dues and workers have also suffered and the settlement should be set aside. It was submitted that the High Court was right in not entertaining such petition and this Court, in exercise of power under Article 136 of H 798 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R. A the Constitution, may not interfere with the said order. CONSIDERATION OF RIVAL CONTENTIONS 16. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and h_aving gone through the records and proceedings of the case, B in our opinion, this is not a fit case for exercise of discretionary and equitable jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. 17. It is clear that so far as the present proceedings are concerned, they are not in the nature of por bonopublico. The appellant herein had made representation to-the Hon'ble Chief C Justice of 'High Court of Judicature at Bombay earlier which was treated as Writ Petition (PIL) and the petition was disposed . of by the Court granting liberty to the aggrieved parties to ap- . preach appropriate forum in appropriate proceeding without granting any relief. Prima facie, therefore, in our opinion, the D contention of the contesting respondents is well-founded that ·if the appellant herein was aggrieved by certain orders passed by Debt Recovery Tribunal (ORTH, Mumbai, he ought to have approached Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) by filing appeals against those orders. lfhe had grievance against the E Company or inaction on the part of the Authorities under Labour Laws on the ground that they had not protected the interests of workers of Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills, he ought to have approached Labour Forum. The appellant, however, did neither. As soon as the PIL Writ Petition was disposed of, within few F days, he filed another writ petition in his individual capacity. The High Court, in our opinion, therefore, was right in dismissing it in '!imine by passing the impugned order that it was not a fit case to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. G MERITS OF THE MATTER 18. On merits also, we find no substance in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. From the record, it is clear that from eighties the respondent No. 1..:Company was H in financial doldrums. Day-by-day, the position deteriorated and + ' -+ SHIVANAND GAURISHANKAR BASWANTI v. LAXMI 799 VISHNU TEXTILES MILLS & ORS. [C.K. THAKKER, J.] it had incurred heavy losses. So much so that. the Mill was reA quired to be closed down somewhere in 1995. Admittedly, after February, 1995, the Company has never revived. It is also clear from the record that substantial amount was due and payable by the Company to State Bank of India, several other financial institutions, secured and unsecured creditors and to B workers. Proceedings had been initiated under SICA. BIFR had passed orders from time to time and finally it recommended winding up of the Company on being satisfied that rehabilitation of the Company was not possible. A recommendation was, therefore, made and papers were forwarded to the High Court c concerned, i.e. the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. It is further clear that in favour of one major creditors, i.e. State Bank of India a decree was passed by ORT-I, Mumbai for Rs.84.39 crores with interest thereon. It has been brought on record that several other financial institutions had approached ORT and 0 either orders were passed in their favour or proceedings were pending. It is brought to our notice that many workers had gone to Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and obtained orders in their favour directing the first respondent Company to pay gratuity with interest thereon. The Company was not in a position to pay entire dues. In the circum.... E stances, ORT-I, Mumbai ordered to take appropriate steps so that joint meeting of all financial institutions and representatives of workers be held and the matter could be settled. Meanwhile, respondent No. 7-Trans Asia Global Trade expressed its desire to purchase the property. On March 8, 2005, a tripartite F agreement had been arrived at between respondent No. 1-Company, representatives of respondent No.8-Union of workers an.d Trans Asia Global Trade-intending purchaser. In the agreement it was stated that the Comp:~ny had huge liability and there were several secured creditors. The property owned by the Company G was not enough to meet with all liabilities. The representatives of respondent No.8 Union were aware of the said fact and agreed to accept amount of Rs.22.21 crores towards full and final settlement of dues of workers. Respondent No. 7 decided to purchase the property for Rs.46.65 crores. The agreem¢nt H 800 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R. A was executed on March 8, 2005 and signed by all the three parties to the agreement, i.e. by the Mill-Company, by the purchaser of property and also by representatives of respondent No.8 Union. A joint meeting of secured and unsecured creditors was also held on April 20, 2005 wherein secured and unB secured creditors of the first rel;)pondent-Company agreed to share sale proceeds of Rs.46.65 crores by accepting and finalizing One Time Settlement (OTS). Final decision was taken on the basis of the agreement arrived at earlier on March 8, 2005. It was decided to sell the property to ·respondent No. 7 for c Rs.46.65 crores. The amount which was to be paid as per the final agreement came as under; 1 nstitutions/Banks/ Principal O/S On Rs. (in Crore Labour 31.3.1999 Proposed Share) SBI 28.05 14.02 D IDBI 4.08 2.04 ICICI 1.24 0.61 IFCI 1.28 0.63 1181 1.54 0.76 E .Labour 22.21 Bank of 1.50 0.50 Maharashtra MSEB· 5.37 4.00 F Sales Tax 0.99 Solapur 0.89 Municipal Corporation and Octroi G GRAND TOTAL 46.65 ' ' .... + 19. On October 6, 2005, an order was passed by Recov- ~-,.. ery Officer, ORT-I, Mumbai in which all the above facts had been stated. The Recovery Officer referred to tripartite agreement and payment of amount to creditors and workers. The order H also recited that as per the direction of the High Court, the work- SHIVANANO GAURISHANKAR BASWANTI v. LAXMI 801 "'~ VISHNU TEXTILES MILLS & ORS. [C.K. THAKKER, J.] ers' claim was to be adjudicated by ORT. The applicant Bank A ,. was, therefore, directed to issue advertisement and invite work- ...... men as per the guidelines formulated by ORT. All the workers were directed to lodge their claims in appropriate format in the Tribunal and all such claims were ordered to be placed before --..,. the Presiding Officer for adjudication. B 20. Regarding valuation of property, it was stated; "Since the valuation was done in the year 2002, before considering the proposal, the property was valued again from the approved valuer from the panel of ORT. According c to the valuation report, offer of the purchaser is above the distress valuation price". 21. It was mentioned that the Tribunal accepted the offer of Mis Trans Asia Global Trade for purchasing movable and ~+ immovable property of the Company in the custody of Receiver D appointed by ORT for an amount' of Rs.47.82 crores.