1. By way of this petition, the petitioner No.1 has prayed that it may be held that he is entitled to get benefit as per the scheme framed by the Union of India in giving benefits to employees of closed textile mills. As per the scheme framed by the Union of India, if any workman was found to be in employment in the closed textile unit on the date of its closure, and who has been continuously in employment for five years or more on the records of the closed textile unit, he is entitled to get benefits of the scheme framed by the Central Government in this behalf.
2. According to the petitioner No.1 he has served continuously for more than five years in the concerned unit of the Mill, which went into liquidation and on the date of liquidation, he has served for the stipulated period. The petitioner No.1 therefore prayed that the Central Government should be directed to pay him necessary benefits as per the scheme framed by the Union of India.
3. This petition is opposed by the respondent- State and reply has been filed by the State taking the point that as per the available records it is found that the petitioner No.1 is not fulfilling the said criteria regarding employment for continuously for more than five years on the date of liquidation. Learned counsel Mr.Vasavada argued that there is ample evidence on record by which the petitioner No.1 can justify his claim as he has completed the stipulated years of service on the relevant date. It is further submitted that even similarly situated employees have been given such benefits.
4. In my view, whether the petitioner No.1 has completed particular years of service on the relevant date is a question, which is required to be decided on the basis of evidence, which can be led by petitioner No.1. Since there is serious factual dispute raised by the respondent-State in this behalf, it would not be appropriate to give any positive finding in this behalf by this Court in its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as it is for the appropriate Forum to decide the question, before whom evidence can be led.
5. Considering the same, the petitioner No.1 is permitted to raise industrial dispute through the petitioner No.2, who is a representative union, and the appropriate Court before whom the dispute is placed for adjudication, may decide the dispute expeditiously as the petitioner No.1 is seriously pressing his monetary claim in connection with closed unit of a Mill, which is closed since long and especially when the petition is pending since 2003 and winding up order is passed as back as in the year 1989. Appropriate Forum under the B.I.R. Act may appropriately dispose of such Reference, in case it is placed for hearing, within a period of six months from such Reference, so that the dispute which is pending since long may not be further delayed. However, the petitioner No.1 should follow the procedure prescribed under Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956. This order is subject to the permission, which the petitioner No.1 is required to take from the Company Judge under Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956.
6. Subject to what is stated aforesaid, the petition is disposed of. Rule is discharged.
(P.B. Majmudar, J) Anup