ORAL JUDGMENT :- The present writ petition is filed challenging the order dt. 16-11-2002 passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Bombay. Some of the material facts of the present case are briefly enumerated as under:

2. The petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1 of 1956 and have various units in different States. It is the case of the petitioners that in 1987 the worth of the company got fully eroded and there was a negative wealth and accordingly the company's management suspended operations of all its manufacturing units and approached BIFR for a revival scheme. On 27-51988 the BIFR declared the company as a SICK undertaking within the meaning of section 3(1)(c) of SICA, 1985. In 1988 the present management took over the company and ultimately reopened the Mahol Unit in July, 1988 and the Deonar Unit in October, 1988. In 1992 they reopened the Bombay unit. On 10-11-1985 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. 1018795 directed the company to submit the scheme of rehabilitation under the SICA Act. On 31-12-1995 the rehabilitation scheme was formulated and forwarded to BIFR by the operating agency. On 8-3-1996 the BIFR formulated private rehabilitation scheme which was circulated and published. On 26-4-1996 BIFR heard the suggestions and objections of the parties and thereafter sanctioned the BIFR scheme. An appeal was preferred against the said order and ultimately the writ petition was filed in the Delhi High Court relating to certain disputes.

3. Sometime thereafter Delhi High Court remanded the matter for reconsideration of the scheme to AAIFR and on 18-8-2000 after reconsidering the said scheme the AAIFR sanctioned the scheme prepared by the operating agency with certain modifications. On 16-7-2001 the scheme of ICICI being the operating agency was brought in operation.

4. On 30-11-1999 the controlling authority passed a common order against the petitioners in. respect of Payment of Gratuity Act to various employees. Sometime in or about 2000 after the order was served on the petitioners, the petitioners by claiming descripancies in the order filed a Misc. Application to set aside the said ex parte order dt. 30-11-1999. On 17-10-2000 the controlling authority has by an impugned order rejected the said application for recall or setting aside of the ex parte order dt.30-11-1999. Being aggrieved by the said order 17-10-2000 the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority under section 7 sub-section (7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. However, the petitioners did not deposit the amount as per the order passed by the Controlling Authority as required under the provisions of the said Act and therefore, the said appeal was not registered. On 25-1-2001, the Registry of the Appellate Authority forwarded a letter inter alia pointing out that under the provisions of sub-section (7) of section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, the appellants are required to produce a certificate of the Controlling Authority to the effect that the appellants have deposited with him an amount equal to the amount of Gratuity required to be deposited or that the amount has been deposited with Appellate Authority. In view of the fact that the petitioners had not deposited the aforesaid amount, the petitioners appeal was not registered. Thereafter the union filed a Writ Petition No. 2732 of 2001 before this Court against the Collector and the Company for enforcement of the said order dt.1710-2000. In the said writ petition, this Court by an order dt. 3-5-2002 directed the petitioners to deposit the amount of Gratuity in accordance with the recovery certificate and further directed that only after depositing the said amount, the petitioners can sell the Worli factory. In accordance with the said order the petitioners deposited the amount of Rs. 53,42,440/- in the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour. On 16-11-2002 the Appellate Authority dismissed the appea

Click Here to Read the rest of this document