Heard both sides. The petitioner is a private limited company represented by its Manager. They have filed the present writ petition seeking for a direction to respondents to remove the seal put up in the factory premises of the petitioner company as requested by the Director of the petitioner company vide letters dated 17.11.2008 and 23.12.2008.
2.Subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, two persons have got themselves impleaded as respondents 2 and 3. It is the case of the petitioner that there was difference of opinion between the Directors of M/s.Ramakrishna Industrials Pvt. Ltd., which culminated in filing of a Company Petition in C.P.No.30/1981 before this court for winding up and for appointment of the Official Liquidator. During the pendency of the company petition, a memorandum of understanding (MOU) was entered into between the Directors of the company on 10.12.1995, whereby all parties to the MOU specifically agreed that the gratuity amounts payable to the workmen of M/s.Ramakrishna Industries Pvt. Ltd. will be paid in equal proportions, i.e. 50% each by respondents 2 and 3, who were the Directors of the said company. The MOU was filed before this court, which finally passed an order, dated 21.9.1995 and recorded the same in that company petition.
3.As per the MOU, the second respondent was liable to pay Rs.36,46,575/- towards his share of gratuity liability to 249 workmen, who had worked in M/s.Ramakrishna Industries Pvt. Ltd. The second respondent had incorporated another company, i.e. RVS Industries Pvt. Ltd., which is the petitioner company, on 3.8.1995. The petitioner company is an independent legal entity. They are a textile machinery manufacturer. They have got a lease of the fixed assets from M/s.Ramakrishna Industries Pvt. Ltd., Nava India Printing Press and Peelamedu Ginning Factory. Since most of the workmen working in the erstwhile Ramakrishna Industries Pvt. Ltd., were rendered jobless, they requested the second respondent who is the Director of the petitioner company, to give them work and run the industry. The petitioner company was functioning well for 5 years. In the meanwhile, the workmen of Ramakrishna Industries Pvt. Ltd. were insisting for payment of second respondent's share of gratuity liability.
4.It is claimed that the liability towards employees was a personal liability of two directors, i.e. respondents 2 and 3, who signed the MOU. The petitioner company, which is a separate entity, has nothing to do with the said liability. While second respondent has paid an amount of Rs.34,49,645/- (50% of his share) towards gratuity of 249 workmen, the third respondent's share remained unpaid. In the meanwhile, the workmen moved the gratuity authority and got the gratuity amounts computed in their favour. The Tahsildar, who was directed to take revenue recovery proceedings, came to the factory and sealed the petitioner's premises on 25.8.2004. The second respondent filed W.P.No.27911 of 2004, challenging the action of the first respondent. This Court, by an order, dated 12.9.2007, directed the parties to appear before the Tahsildar and submit their explanations.
5.The first respondent pursuant to the direction given by this court, conducted a detailed enquiry. Since no order was passed, another writ petition was filed in W.P.No.20728 of 2008 to direct the first respondent to pass appropriate orders. Pursuant to the directions, the first respondent passed the final order. During the course of the enquiry, the second respondent was directed to pay a sum of Rs.67,973/- towards gratuity outstanding. In this background, the present writ petitioner seeks for a direction to remove the seals from the company premises.
6.Notice was ordered in this writ petition. Mr.N.Anand Venkatesh, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that pending writ petition, two directors were made as parties as noted already. It must be noted that the agreement between the family members of erstwhile M/s.Ramakrishna Industries Pvt. Ltd. is purely private and it does not bind the workers. So long as the workers are not paid gratuity in terms of provisions of the Act by entering into some family arrangement, neither the petitioner nor respondents 2 and 3 can defeat the right of workers. If any of the persons, who are signatories to MOU does not make payment under the MOU, it is not necessary for the workers to run behind such Directors when there is an opportunity for them to take recourse to revenue recovery proceedings to get their dues satisfied.
7.In the present case, the workers had also got an order in their favour, pursuant to which the first respondent was directed to initiate revenue recovery proceedings. By a paper arrangements, the petitioner cannot defeat the right of workers from getting their gratuity. If at all, there is any due for the second respondent, he has to make a claim against the third respondent. In fact, it is an admitted case that though the petitioner company is a private limited company, it has only taken on lease the movable and immovable properties of the Ramakrishna Industries Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, they cannot claim to be the owner of the said property. The properties of that company includes landed properties. Therefore, there is no question of the petitioner company claiming any ownership of the said property.
8.In the light of the above, the prayer made by the petitioner cannot be countenanced by this court. Accordingly, the writ petition will stand dismissed. No costs. There is no impediment for the first respondent to take revenue recovery proceedings for collecting the amounts due and payable to the workers towards gratuity. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition also stand dismissed.
09.12.2009 Index : Yes Internet : Yes vvk To The Tahsildar (South), O/o the Tahsildar, Hozur Road, Coimbatore-641 018.
K.CHANDRU, J.
vvk PRE DELIVERY ORDER IN W.P.NO.4989 of 2009 09.12.2009