IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CIVIL APPLICATION (OJ) NO. 327 of 2016 In COMPANY PETITION NO. 62 of 2014 ========================================================== RAGHUVEER SINGH RATHOD & 4....Applicant(s) Versus MEENAL LAXMICHAND DEDHIA & 1....Respondent(s) ========================================================== Appearance: MR ASPI KAPADIA, ADVOCATE for PARTH S SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 - 5 MR LALIT M PATEL, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR RAVISH D BHATT, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA Date : 13/10/2016
1. Heard Mr. Aspi Kapadia, learned advocate for Mr. Parth Shah, learned advocate for the applicants, Mr. Lalit Patel, learned advocate for opponent no.1 and Mr. R.D. Bhatt, learned advocate for opponent no.2.
2. The Company is heard and the present application is filed by the employees of opponent no.2 Company seeking impleadment as party respondents in the main petition. Mr. Kapadia has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of National Textile Workers' Union Vs. P.R. Ramakrishnan & Ors., reported in AIR 1983 SC 75, wherein in Paragraph 11, it is observed as under:
11. We are therefore of the view that the workers are entitled to appear at the hearing of the winding up petition whether to support or to oppose it so long as no winding up order is made by the court. The workers have a locus to appear and be heard in the winding up petition both before the winding up petition is admitted and an order for advertisement is made as also after the admission and advertisement of the winding up petition until an order is made for winding up the company. If a winding up order is made and the workers are aggrieved by it, they would also be entitled to prefer an appeal and contend in the appeal that no winding up order should have been made by the Company Judge. But when a winding up order is made and it has become final, the workers ordinarily would not have any right to participate in any proceeding in the course of winding up the company though there may be rare cases where in a proceeding in the course of winding up, the interest of the workers may be involved and in such a case it may be possible to contend that the workers must be heard before an order is made by the court. We think that even when an application for appointment of a provisional liquidator is made by the petitioner in a winding up petition, the workers would have a right to be heard if they so wish because the appointment of a provisional liquidator may adversely affect the interest of the workers. But we may make it clear that neither the petitioner nor the court would be under any obligation to give notice of such application to the workers. It would be for the workers to apply for being heard and if they do so, they would be entitled to appear and be heard on the application for appointment of provisional liquidator. The workers therefore in the present case had a right to be heard before the provisional liquidator was appointed by the Company Judge but the circumstance that the workers were not so heard would not have the effect of vitiating the order appointing provisional liquidator, because on the view taken by us, it would be open to the workers to apply to the court for vacating that order and it would be for the court after considering the material produced before it and hearing the parties to decide whether that order should be vacated or not.
3. The applicants by way of further affidavit have annexed photocopies of the certificate of employer dated 23.9.2016. Considering the said aspect and the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of National Textile Workers' Union (supra), the applicants being in employment of the opponent no.2 Company have right to appear at the hearing of the winding up petition which is filed by opponent no.1. As held by the Apex Court in the case of National Textile Workers' Union (supra), they have locus to appear in the winding up proceedings. Hence, the applicants shall have right to be heard in the petition which is pending at the notice stage. The applicants are therefore to be joined as interveners without prejudice to rights of all parties.
4. Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of. (R.M.CHHAYA, J.)
Comments