AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dipankar Datta, J.—This writ petition is at the instance of the EPM Limited Workmen''s Union, represented by its General Secretary Mr. Gora Chand Adhikary. Eastern Paper Mills Limited (hereafter ''the company'') was referred to the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereafter ''the BIFR''). By an order dated 17th January, 1989 the company was directed to be wound up. An appeal was taken to the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereafter ''the AAIFR'') by the company. The AAIFR dismissed the appeal by an order dated 26th August, 1993. It appears that the orders of the BIFR and the AAIFR were challenged before this Court. However, the challenge proved to be unsuccessful even up to the Division Bench.
Number of employees'' unions represented the employees before the BIFR The petitioner union was not in existence then. It has surfaced only in the last few years. Grievance of the petitioner union represented by Mr. Adhikary is that the dues of the members of such union are still not being cleared by the company.
The learned company Judge of this Court, it appears, had the occasion to consider several petitions that had been filed by the creditors against the company. Two learned advocates were appointed as joint special officers. It appears that Mr. Adhikary accepted Rs. 48,402/- by cheque bearing No. 049399 dated 7.11.2007 towards full and final settlement of his dues. It is submitted by Mr. Majumder, learned advocate for the Joint Managing Director of the company, respondent No. 8, that the other employees also received their dues in similar manner.
Having regard to such facts, I am of the view that this writ petition (whereby the attempt of the petitioner union is to compel the company to clear the dues of its members) is not maintainable. It is settled law that a writ petition does not lie against a private party. In order to maintain a writ petition against a private party, it has to be shown that a public authority acting in connivance with such private party has been infringing the rights of the petitioner. Reference in this connection may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Shalini Shyam Shetty and Another Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, . No such case has been set up.
The writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Needless to observe, if at all any amount is due and payable by the company to the members of the petitioner union, they shall be at liberty to seek their remedy by initiating appropriate proceedings in accordance with law before the appropriate forum. Urgent Photostat copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished expeditiously.