BOMBAY DYEING AND MFG. CO.LTD. v. BOMBAY ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION GROUP AND ORS.

As we have considered the matter on merits, evidently, we are not dismissing the writ petition on the ground of delay and !aches alone but we have taken the same as one of the factors in determining the questions raised D before us.

CONFLICTING ST AND OF WORKMEN

The workers are vertically divided. Whereas Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh (RMMS) sides with the mill owners, Girni Kamgar Sangharsh E Committee (GKSS) sides with the writ petitioners. They contradict each other not only from their own stand point vis-a-vis the point of view of the workers, but also as regards the interpretation and constitutionality of OCR 58. RMMS complains that the High Court did not consider its principal submissions at all which were placed before it by way of written submissions, but merely F considered only those which were raised by way of further written submissions. According to them, RMMS is the only representative and approved trade + union under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act for Greater Bombay. According to them, closure of the cotton mills affected 2,00,000 workers and because of the strike the mills defaulted in making payment of wages, provident funds dues, gratuity, etc. to the workers causing great hardship to them. It G played an active role in the revival I rehabilitation of the NTC mills and other sick mills by representing the workers' cause before BIFR. It also agrees with the reasons put forward by the appellants as regards the validity of OCR 58 of 200 I. It highlights the policy/ objectives thereof in great details. It also states: H (i) RMMS has entered into YRS Agreement with the management of

BOMBAY DYEING AND MFG. CO. LTD. v. BOMBAY ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION GROUP (SINHA, I.] 1055 several mills. A

' (ii) Nearly 10,000 workers of the NTC mills and more than 25,000 workers of private mills, aggregating in all more than 35,000 workers stand to benefit by the VRS Schemes. (iii) As on date, the NTC mills have discharged their entire liabilities under the VRS Schemes by making payment to the extent of B

398. 76 crores payable to these workers. (iv) The Maharashtra State Textile Corporation has also cleared the r outstanding dues of its workers to the extent of Rs. 22 crores. As , regards the private mills, out of the total amount due to the workers .under VRS Schemes amounting to 808.75 crores, approximately c a sum of 631.05 crores has been paid. (v) However, approximately Rs. 373 crores remain outstanding to be paid to approximately 20,000 workers which payments are directly linked to the development of the lands by the mill owners. D It further argues that if the judgment of the High Court is implemented, it would cause irretrievable injury and extreme prejudice to the workers.

Mr. Colin Gonsalves, learned counsel appearing on behalf of GKSS, on the other hand, not only laid emphasis on the so-called defaults of the mill owners but had gone to the extent of urging that the workers' dues have not E been paid substantively. He further contended that revival scheme has not been given effect to and the amount required to be spent therefor had in fact not been spent. It has further been contended that no guidelines had at all been framed for the Monitoring Committee by the State for overseeing the disbursement of funds. According to it, in the case of Mafatlal Centre although the scheme was sanctioned in 200 I, no payment has been made despite the F ~ fact that the company received a sum of Rs. 16 crores from the sale of the built up areas of Mafatlal Centre at Pare I. The workers' dues being to the extent of 93 crores, the same are in excess of the legal dues of the workers and only a paltry sum had been paid to them whereas the dues of the banks had been cleared. G In these appeals, we are not concerned with the said issues. We may, >· however, place on record that according to Mr. Sorabjee the statement of Mr. " Colin Gonsalves that nothing had been paid to the workers is baseless and irresponsible. It was contended that the Union represented by Mr. Gonsalves impleaded itself in the writ petition filed by it before the High Court against H

1056 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] 2 S.C.R.

A the MCGM as regard non-disposal of layout plan, etc. wherein they categorically stated that it would have no objection to the development of their property subject to realization of the cheques given in favour of the workers. It is stated that the cheques had been fully realized and the workers have enjoyed the benefit of payment.

B We have pointed out these factors only for the purpose of showing that this litigation was treated to be a platform for even championing the cause of the workers although neither the High Court nor this Court is concerned therewith. • • In terms of the Regulations, the entire amount is to be deposited in the C funds specially created therfor. It is the Committee appointed by the State alone which can spend the amount. The priority as regard disbursal of such amount has categorically been laid down in the regulation itself. If the fund created is not being expended for the purposes mentioned therein, a separate cause of action will arise therefor. It is, thus, not necessary for us to delve• D deep into the said contentions. Guidelines for the Committee are also not necessary to be laid down. In any event, we are not called upon nor is it necessary to make any attempt in that regard. However, if any occasion arises for any of the parties in this behalf, the aggrieved party indisputably would be at Iiberty to agitate the same before appropriate forums

E CONCLUSION

The upshot of our aforementioned discussions is:

(i) The Public Interest Litigation was maintainable. (ii} OCR 58 is valid in law. OCR 58( I) applies also to closed mills F but sub-regulation (6) of OCR 58 does not apply to sick industries + which have not been referred to BIFR. (iii) The clarification made by the State is neither ultra vires Section 37 of the MRTP Act nor is violative of the constitutional provisions. G (iv) OCR 58, as inserted in 200 I and as clarified in 2003, is not contrary to the principles governing environmental aspects including the principles of sustainable and planned development ' vis-a-vis Article 2 I of the Constitution of India.

H (v) Judicial review of OCR 58 was permissible in law.

BOMBAY DYEING AND MFG. CO.LTD.'· BOMBAY ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION GROUP (SINHA,!.) ) QS 7

(vi) Sale of NTC mills was not contrary to the BIFR Scheme as also A \ the orders passed by this Court. (vii) Although, delay and !aches play an important role, as we have considered the merit of the matter, the writ petition filed by the Respondent Nos. I and 2 is not being dismissed on that ground alone. B (viii)It is not necessary for us to go into the question as to whether worker's dues have been paid and also as to whether the committee had been applying the fund in terms of DCR 58 or not. However, all such contentions shall remain open.

For the reasons aforementioned, these appeals are allowed, the impugned c judgment of the High Court is set aside. However, in the facts and circumstances of the cases, there shall be no order as to costs.

G.N. Appeals allowed.