( 1 ) THE petitioner " Textile Labour Union has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and challenged the impugned order dated 22-06-2005 (Annexure-L) passed by the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, New Delhi (for short, "aaifr") as well as the impugned order dated 30-10-2002 (Annexure-A) passed by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, New Delhi (for short, "bifr"), and prayed that respondent No. 2 " Mafatlal Industries Limited be directed to pay salary to the members of the petitioner " Union on the basis of current D. A. as applicable to the industry and respondent No. 2 be further directed to pay the difference of salary wef 30-11-2002 on the basis of prevalent D. A. index. Thereafter, by way of an amendment, prayer clause 12 (BB) was amended in the petition with the permission of the Court, which reads as under:

"12 (BB) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorary or writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction quashing and setting aside the order dated 22-6-05 passed by AAIFR. "

( 2 ) IT appears that there is a typographical mistake in prayer Clause 12 (B ). The order was passed by BIFR and it was initially impleaded as respondent No. 5 to this petition whereas IDBI, Mumbai, which was the Operating Agency, was impleaded as respondent No. 4. Be that as it may, both these respondents i. e. Nos. 4 and 5, however, have been later on deleted from the arena of the cause-title on 10-04-2006 as per the order of this Court.

( 3 ) FROM the impugned order at Annexure-A passed by BIFR, it appears that the BIFR had declared respondent No. 2 - Mafatlal Industries Limited as a Sick Company in terms of Section 3 (1) (o) of the Sick Industries Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (for short, "the Act") and had appointed IDBI (earlier joined as respondent No. 4) under Section 17 (3) of the Act to examine the viability of the Company and submit its report, if found viable. The rehabilitation proposal submitted by the Company was discussed at the joint meeting held on 24-09-2001 and there was broad consensus amongst the participants with the exception of few participants to the proposal submitted by the Company. State Bank of India (Lead Bank) conveyed in writing its acceptance to the proposal. At the hearing held on 14-12-2001, the Bench directed the Operating Agency to submit revised rehabilitation proposal after incorporating the response of the concerns raised by the Agency, the workers and the consortium of Banks. The impugned order was passed on 30-10-2002, whereby the BIFR had sanctioned the Scheme (running Pages 20 to 44) and para-5 envisaged RELIEFS AND CONCESSIONS for all concerned and its Clause " E for the workers / employees. The petitioner " Union is aggrieved by insertion of Clause E (v) which reads as under: "to agree to freeze the wages at current level for next 5 years and enter into Agreement with the management to this effect. "

( 4 ) IT is the case of the petitioner-Union in this petition that the impugned order dated 30-10-2002, framing the Scheme passed by the BIFR, came to their knowledge somewhere in March 2003. As soon as it had come to their knowledge, they had applied for the Certified Copy of the impugned order at Annexure-A passed by BIFR on 09-05-2003. The Certified Copy of the same was received by them on 13-05-2003 and without wasting further time, they had availed of statutory remedy of appeal before AAIFR on 19-06-2003 along with the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The said appeal was dismissed by AAIFR by its impugned order dated 22-06-2005, Annexure-L, running page " 66/a, only on the ground that it was not filed within the period of limitation of 60 days and, therefore, they had no authority under the Act to condone the delay in filing the appeal late beyond the period of limitation. Hence, this order was ch