Extract
Swaika Properties Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. VS. State Of Rajasthan & Ors.
The Judgement Information System CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2076 of 2008PETITIONER: Cement Workers Karamchari Sangh RESPONDENT: M/s. Jaipur Udyog Limited & Ors DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24/03/2008BENCH: C.K.Thakker & Aftab Alam JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N TCIVIL APPEAL NO 2076 OF 2008[@ SLP (C) NO.4088/2005]AFTAB ALAM, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal was filed against the order, dated August 2, 2004 by which a learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court set aside both the interim and final orders, dated August 3 and September 6, 2001 passed by the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, New Delhi (AAIFR) and remitted the matter to it for passing fresh order after giving an opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties. The AAIFR order (that was set aside by the High Court) had dismissed the appeal filed by M/s.Jaipur Udyog Ltd., respondent No.1, and affirmed the order of its winding up passed by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction Bench-II (BIFR) on November 24, 2000 in Case No.17 of 1987. The High Court took the view that the AAIFR had dismissed the appeal of respondent No.1 without giving it a reasonable opportunity of hearing and, accordingly, gave direction for fresh hearing of the matter. The order passed by the High Court was brought before this Court in appeal by a workers' union, namely, Cement Workers Karamchari Sangh. The appeal was based on the plea that the remand to the AAIFR would not serve any useful purpose but would lead to an unnecessary and unreasonable prolongation of the matter causing great prejudice and distress to the workers who had already suffered much due to non- payment of their dues for a very long time. Thus the appeal at its inception appeared to present for consideration the simple and limited issue as to whether the High Court was justified in taking the view that the order passed by the AAIFR was in breach of the principles of natural justice and for that reason remitting the proceeding to it.3. However, during the pendency of the proceeding before this Court certain developments took place that tend to somewhat shift the focus from the limit...
See the full content of this document