AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Umesh Chandra Banerjee, C.J.—These writ appeals are directed against the order of the learned single Judge directing appointment of Liquidators over the affairs of the Andhra Cooperative Spinning Mills Ltd., Guntakal, a "Cooperative Society" governed by the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 with further directions onto the Slate Government - (1) to make a deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the liquidation costs, (2) to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/-per month to each of the liquidators and (3) that all the workmen including the staff and Officers shall be paid a sum equivalent to six months monthly emoluments drawn by each of them and the Government was directed to make payment in regard thereto. It is on these three specific counts, the learned Advocate-General appearing for the State Government contended that the order is untenable in law and cannot be sustained. Be it noted, however, that the learned Advocate-General, as is recorded in the order, himself has proposed the following:
"He (Mr. Advocate-General) further submits that though the scope of the writ petition was confined to the wages of the workers yet in view of the prevailing situation, permanent solution to the problem may be carved out by appropriate orders".
As recorded in the judgment, the learned Advocate-General further contended that:
"....in view of the fact that the very purpose of promoting the object for which the mill was established has been frustrated, the Court may consider winding up of the mill under the Act, so that the interest of the workmen as well as the mill could be better protected."
Be it noted that the learned single Judge has also considered the submissions of the other parties and there was total unanimity in regard to the order of winding up being passed and the order of appointment of the Liquidators over the assets of the Company since the substratum of the Company has lost its efficacy.
Incidentally, the factual score depicts that the Industrial Development Bank of India (IDBI) has, in feet, instituted a suit in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay and applied for appointment of a Receiver in respect of the assets of the Society, the Bombay High Court in terms of the application did appoint a Receiver and the Receiver, in fact, has taken actual physical possession of the schedule property i.e. of the Society and presently the same is in custodia legis.
It is on this factual background that the matter needs to be gone into since the law is well settled on this score that the property in possession of the Receiver ought not to be interfered with without leave of the Court which has appointed the Receiver.
Be it noted that the writ petition has been filed by the labour force of the Cooperative Society seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to make available the salaries payable to them since they are without the same for a fairly long period of time. It is in this perspective the further factual score comes to light to the effect that the Cooperative Society, in charge of the Mill, has not been functioning since 1991 and eventually resulting in non-payment of the salaries of the employees. The learned single Judge while dealing with the writ petition, however, on the basis of the suggestion made by the learned Advocate-General as recorded above, thought it prudent to appoint Liquidators over the assets of the Society upon an order of winding up being made by the learned single Judge himself It is on this score as well that the order needs to be looked into with some care and caution by reason of the statutory provisions as envisaged in Section 64 of the A.P.Cooperative Societies Act, 1964. Section 64 of the Act, however, for convenience sake, at this juncture is reproduced herein below:
"64. Winding up of Societies ;--(1) If the Registrar, after an enquiry has been held u/s 51 or an inspection has been made u/s 52 or on receipt of an application made by not less than two-thirds of the members, is of opinion that the Society ought to be wound up, he may after giving the Society an opportunity of making its representation, by order direct it to be wound up.
(2) The Registrar may, of his own motion and after giving the Society an opportunity of making its representation, if any, make an order directing the winding up of a Society,
(a) Where it is a condition of the registration of the Society shall consist of atleast ten members and the membership falls short of that number;
or
(b) where the Society has not commenced working within the prescribed period or has ceased to work; or
(c) where in the opinion of the Registrar the Society is conducting its affairs in a manner detrimental to the interest of its members or the promotion of the object for which it has been registered."
The language of the statute, therefore, as appears, is clear and categorical to the effect that it is on the Registrar only that the statute empowers the power to direct winding-up upon fulfilment, however, of certain conditions. It is a statutory provision and the Registrar being the creature of the statute shall have to assess the situation in terms of the provisions of the statute and the Court is not otherwise empowered to order winding up or to appoint a Liquidator. No amount of consent can be conferred onto the Court to act de hors the statute. In the event the statute prescribes a specific mode, that particular mode alone needs to be adhered to as prescribed by the statute and not otherwise. Be it also noted that Sections 65 and 66 of the Act deal with the provisions for appointment of the Liquidators and the powers of the Liquidators. Again these are the statutory provisions which ought to be carried out to their fullest extent in order to achieve the intendment of the law maker and the Law Court must always act in terms thereof and not dehors the same.
We are, however, faced with a situation, wherein, in the contextual facts, that a Cooperative Society which has ceased its operation since 1991 has registered employees; the Union is representing or championing the cause of the employees as active workmen are available; in regard to the assets of the Society, a Receiver has been appointed to take charge the assets and the property is now in custodia legis and the learned single Judge having noted the above contextual background thought it fit to direct winding up of the Cooperative Society with directions to the State Government to pay salaries to the employees including the staff and officers for atleast six months, to pay remuneration ofRs.5,000/- per month as noted above to each of the Liquidators with a further direction to the Government to make a deposit of Rs. 1,00,000/- as liquidation charges.
In the light of the above, the question that falls for consideration as to whether in the factual backdrop as above, the learned single Judge has had the jurisdiction to deal with the matter in the manner as above. Without, however, going into the issue presently, be it noted that the Court has to act for the benefit of the Society at large though, however, within the parameters of law and not contrary thereto.
In that view of the matter and having due regard to the facts of the matter under consideration, we dispose of these appeals in the manner following:
We direct the State Government to pay salary for a period of two months to the employees. This order is passed having due regard to the fact that the Government was the guarantor as regards the payment of salaries and functioning of the Cooperative Society and also having due regard to the plight of the employees and not by reason of the right involved on them, since the Court feels it expedient to direct some payment at this point of time. Whatever money, however, is paid to the employees, the entire quantum shall remain as a charge over the assets of the Cooperative Society. The Receiver appointed by the Bombay High Court is directed to obtain suitable directions in this regard from the High Court of Bombay having due regard to the contextual facts. Be it recorded that the suit filed by the 1DBI is restricted to about Rs. One Crore. The assets of the Company as per the valuation report exceeds many a time more than the claim of the 1DBI. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay may be approached for appropriate orders in the matter. The Registrar of Cooperative Societies, in the event he deems it fit and proper, take appropriate steps in the matter in accordance with the provisions of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act and may even approach the Bombay High Court for appropriate orders in the matter.
Save as aforesaid, the directions as regards the winding up of the Society and the appointment of Liquidators and other incidental directions etc. as passed by the learned single Judge stand set aside. The payment to the work force in terms of this order, however, be made within a period of four weeks from the date hereof.
The appeals are disposed of as above. No order as to costs.