Madurai District Spinning Vs State of Tamilnadu

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.9554 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 25.03.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.9554 of 2019 and

¶7

W.M.P.(MD) No.7521 of 2019

¶8

Madurai District Spinning and Weaving Labour HMS Union rep.by its Secretary C.Sundaram 15, Mangammal Salai Tirunagar Post Madurai-6 ... Petitioner

¶9

-vs-

¶10

1.State of Tamil Nadu rep.by its Secretary to Government Department of Labour and Employment Fort St.George Chennai-9

¶11

2.The Commissioner of Labour Department of Labour and Employment Teynampet Anna Salai Chennai

¶12

_____________ Page 1 of 8_

¶13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶14

W.P.(MD) No.9554 of 2019

¶15

3.The Deputy Commissioner of Labour Office of Deputy Commissioner of Labour No.84, 1^st Street, Nehruji Nagar Govindapuram Dindigul-624 001

¶16

4.The Assistant Commissioner of Labour Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour No.84, 1^st Street, Nehruji Nagar Govindapuram Dindigul-624 001

¶17

5.The State Bank of India Stressed Assets Management Branch rep.by its Assistant General Manager 1112, Raja Plaza, Avinashi Road Coimbatore-641 037

¶18

6.Sri Vakira Kaliamman Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd., rep.by its Managing Director Silukuvarpatti Nilakottai Taluk Dindigul District ... Respondents

¶19

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 22.11.2017 and 09.12.2017 and thereby not to allow the fifth respondent to alienate its properties and remove the machineries from the fifth respondent mill.

¶20

Page 2 of 8

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

W.P.(MD) No.9554 of 2019

¶23

For Petitioner : Mr.T.K.Gopalan for Mr.S.Vellaichamy For Respondents : Mr.S.Shanmugavel Additional Government Pleader for R1 to R4 Mr.V.P.Rajan for R5 No appearance for R6 Mr.N.Shanmugaselvam for proposed R7

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner – Union seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 to consider the representations, dated 22.11.2017 and 09.12.2017, stated to have been submitted by the petitioner – Union, requesting them not to allow the fifth respondent to alienate the properties and remove the machineries from the sixth respondent – Mill.

¶26

2. The basis for the petitioner – Union to make such a claim is that the sixth respondent – Mill owes dues to the tune of more than rupees three crores to the workmen, who are the members of the petitioner – Union and without clearing the said dues, the fifth respondent has taken steps to sell away the sixth respondent – Mill by conducting an auction in terms of the

¶27

Page 3 of 8

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

W.P.(MD) No.9554 of 2019

¶30

provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

¶31

3. By now, admittedly, the sixth respondent – Mill was already sold in favour of the proposed seventh respondent, namely, M/s.S.D.M.Cotton Spin (India) Private Limited, Silukkuvarpatti, Dindigul District, as early as on 25.10.2021. Thus, the consequential relief sought by the petitioner – Union has now become infructuous.

¶32

4. Under those circumstances, the petitioner has filed an application to implead the auction purchaser, namely, M/s.S.D.M.Cotton Spin (India) Private Limited, Silukkuvarpatti, Dindigul District, as seventh respondent in the main writ petition, by filing W.M.P.(MD) No.12830 of 2022.

¶33

5. The proposed seventh respondent filed a counter affidavit in the impleading application viz ., W.M.P.(MD) No.12830 of 2022 contending that they are not liable for the dues payable by the sixth respondent – Mill prior to the purchase of the said Mill by them and therefore, they are neither necessary nor a proper party to the writ petition.

¶34

_____________ Page 4 of 8_

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

W.P.(MD) No.9554 of 2019

¶37

6. Learned counsel appearing for the proposed seventh respondent placed reliance on the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of The Assistant Commissioner (CT) vs. The Indian Overseas Bank (FB) , reported in 2016 (6) CTC 769 , by contending that in the light of Section 31-B of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, no liability can be fastened on the auction purchaser of whatsoever nature.

¶38

7. However, in spite of the fact that the sixth respondent – Mill was already sold in favour of the proposed seventh respondent, the petitioner – Union has not taken any steps to amend the prayer in this writ petition and the prayer of this writ petition still remains as seeking a direction to the respondents 1 to 4 to consider the representations dated 22.11.2017 and 09.12.2017 stated to have been submitted by them.

¶39

8. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner – Union submitted that both the representations said to have been submitted by the petitioner – Union are required to be considered by the second respondent. Further, he also submitted that the proposed seventh respondent was already put on notice by the third respondent in connection with the

¶40

Page 5 of 8

¶41

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶42

W.P.(MD) No.9554 of 2019

¶43

claim made by the petitioner – Union herein and the proposed seventh respondent also appeared before the third respondent and the said proceedings are still pending awaiting disposal of the present writ petition.

¶44

9. Considering the fact that the relief sought in this writ petition is only a mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 to consider the representations dated 22.11.2017 and 09.12.2017 stated to have been submitted by the petitioner – Union, this Court does not see any reason to examine the matter on merits or to keep the matter pending any further.

¶45

10. In the light of the above, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents 2 & 3 to consider the representations dated 22.11.2017 and 09.12.2017, stated to have been submitted by the petitioner – Union, and pass appropriate orders thereon by duly putting all the necessary parties, who are likely to be affected by such an order, on notice, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case if the petitioner – Union is of the view that the proposed seventh respondent herein is a necessary party, it is always open to them to submit appropriate representation to the respondents 2 & 3 to that effect and in case if any such representation is submitted by the

¶46

_____________ Page 6 of 8_

¶47

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶48

W.P.(MD) No.9554 of 2019

¶49

petitioner – Union, the respondents 2 & 3 shall take a decision on the same in accordance with law and proceed with the matter accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶50

25.03.2025

¶51

(1/2)

¶52

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

¶53

krk

¶54

To: 1.The Secretary to Government, Department of Labour and Employment, State of Tamil Nadu,

¶55

Fort St.George, Chennai-9.

¶56

2.The Commissioner of Labour, Department of Labour and Employment, Teynampet,

¶57

Anna Salai, Chennai.

¶58

3.The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Office of Deputy Commissioner of Labour, No.84, 1^st Street, Nehruji Nagar, Govindapuram, Dindigul-624 001.

¶59

4.The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, No.84, 1^st Street, Nehruji Nagar, Govindapuram, Dindigul-624 001.

¶60

Page 7 of 8

¶61

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶62

W.P.(MD) No.9554 of 2019

¶63

MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.

¶64

krk

¶65

W.P.(MD) No.9554 of 2019 and W.M.P.(MD) No.7521 of 2019