1. Rule.
2. Learned counsel for respondents waives service. By consent rule taken up for final hearing forthwith.
3. The petitioners by this petition contends that the order, dated 30 August, 1996, passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai, in Miscellaneous Application (ULP) No. 13 of 1995 in Complaint (ULP) No. 526 of 1990 should be set aside. The sole contention raised by the petitioners is that the petitioner-company has been declared to be a sick unit under S. 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, and by virtue of S. 22 no recovery can be made in respect of the subject-matter of the complaint.
4. The complaint is in respect of recovery of wages of workmen for the period that they have worked moved by respondents 1 to 13. Learned counsel for petitioners has relied on the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Shree Chamundi Mopeds, Ltd. v. Church of S.I.T Association reported in (1992) 3 SCC 1 : A.I.R 1992 S.C 1439; and in the case of Deputy Commercial Tax Officer v. Corromandel Pharmaceuticals reported in J.T 1997 (3) S.C 660. Learned counsel for the respondents relied on the judgment of the Single Judge of this Court in the case of Baburao P. Tawade v. Hes, Ltd. reported in 1995 (2) L.L.N 96. Learned counsel for respondents have further pointed out that this is the only case where the petitioner corporation has raised such an issue and in fact in all other similar matters, the petitioner corporation has been paying the wages of the workmen.
5. On hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the opinion that this petition should be rejected. In so far as the case of Shree Chamundi Mopeds, Ltd. (vide supra), is concerned, the same was considered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Baburao P. Tawade [1995 (2) L.L.N 96] (vide supra). Hence, I do not propose to further consider the said case. The other case relied on by the counsel for the petitioner is Deputy Commercial Tax Officer v. Corromandal Pharmaceuticals (vide supra). In the said case the question came up for consideration before the Apex Court was whether the Sales Tax dues could be recovered after a company has been declared sick or a scheme framed under S. 22 of the Act. The Apex Court held that S. 22 would not bar such a recovery. There are no other observations in the said judgment which will come to the assistance of the petitioners in support of the contention that wages due to the workers are also barred by the provisions of S. 22 and that the workers will have to approach the Board in respect of the said wages. This very argument was canvassed before the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Baburao P. Tawade (vide supra). The learned Single Judge after considering the said argument rejected the said contention and while rejecting the same observed, that such a position if allowed to prevail could easily defeat the legitimate claim of the workmen for wages and other dues by not paying them in the first instance, forcing the workers to resort to other remedies under any of the applicable labour statutes and then pleading the bar in S. 22(1) I am in respectful agreement with the observation of the learned Single Judge.
6. Apart from that, language of S. 22 in no way would stand in the way of workers making recovery of wages much in the same way as recovery of tax by the Government as has been laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (vide supra). As further pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, the petitioners have been paying wages of other workers in all such similar cases. It has been clearly conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in those cases payment was made as the present issue was not raised and this issue has been raised for the first time in this matter. As the contention of the applicability of S. 22 has been rejected, there is no substance in the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners.
7. In the circumstances, rule discharged. Petition stands dismissed. In the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.
8. Issuance of certified copy expedited.