S. K. PHAUJDAR, J.

( 1 ) ALL the aforesaid matters were heard together as a common point of law stood involved in all these cases. The present order, accordingly, would cover all the aforesaid petitions.

( 2 ) THE petitioners run an industry as a unit of National Textile Corporation (in short, the ntc) at Naini, Allahabad. It is the case of the petitioner that the NTC is an undertaking of the government of India under the provisions of the Industrial Development Regulation Act and the Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1986. The unit became sick and had submitted a reference under Section 15 (1) of the Sick industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (in short, the SICA 1985), before the board for the Industrial and Financial re-structuring (in short, the BIFR ). It was the further case of the petitioners that the reference was registered by BIFR by its order dated June 8, 1993 and the petitioner company had been declared sick under Section 3 (1) (o) of the sica, 1985. It was urged on behalf of the petitioners that being declared a sick unit, no recovery proceedings were to be initiated against the petitioner mill under Section 22 of the SICA, 1985.

( 3 ) THERE was, however a claim for payment of gratuity to certain retired employees of the petitioner and the Assistant labour Commissioner (Central), being the controlling Authority under the Payment of gratuity Act, 1972, proceeded against the petitioners for recovery of the unpaid amount of gratuity.

( 4 ) SO far as the first mentioned writ petition is concerned, there had been a finding of the assistant Labour Commissioner dated June 14, 1999 directing payment of Rs. 65,652. 30 together with interest as gratuity to respondent no. 3, J. P. Saha. The findings of respondent No. 1 were challenged in the writ petition not only on the ground of Section 22 of the SICA, 1985 but also on merits of the claim that no gratuity was to be paid to respondent No. 3 as he had not vacated the official quarters.

( 5 ) IN the second mentioned writ petition, the finding was dated June 15, 1999 for an amount of Rs. 44,128. 80 with interest in respect of one Gulab Singh and similar objections as per the first mentioned case were taken towards this finding as well.

( 6 ) IN the third mentioned writ petition, again, the finding was dated June 15, 1999 for a sum of Rs. 48,106. 60 with interest in favour of one Munendra Singh Bisth. Objections in this case were also similar to those as the first mentioned case.

( 7 ) IN the last mentioned writ petition, the finding was dated June 15, 1999 for a sum of rs. 31,284/- plus interest for one Ali Haidar. Here also similar objections, as stated above, were raised.

( 8 ) IN all the writ petitions, the petitioners made a prayer for a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned orders dated June 14, 1999 and June 15, 1999 and for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents from implementing the aforesaid orders towards recovery of the alleged dues. It was asserted in all these writ petitions that in similar circumstances a large number of writ petitions had been filed before the Allahabad High Court and in all those cases concerning workmen had not vacated official quarters the High Court had recorded orders staying the direction for payment of gratuity unless the workers vacated the quarters. The copies of the orders were annexed with the writ petitions. On behalf of the petitioners it was contended that Section 22 of the SICA, 1985, was a clear bar towards recovery of the dues even for payment of gratuity. This point was seriously contested by the learned counsel for the Union of India who had submitted that when it was a question of payment of gratuity the bar under Section 22 of the SICA, 1985, would not be applicable.

( 9 ) THERE is no denial mat the employees are entitled to gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity act, 1972. There is also no denial that the assistant Labour Commissioner was t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document