The interpretation of the Sick industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 and relevant case law influenced the court's decision regarding the entitlement of the respondent to salary, leave encashment, and gratuity.

( 1 ) BY means of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 30/01/2001, Annexure-2 to the writ petition, by which the Labour Court has passed the order directing the payment to be made in favour of the respondent/employee in respect to his balance salary alongwith the payment of 90 days' leave encashment to the extent of Rs. 14,256/- and gratuity.

( 2 ) THE Labour Court has directed for the payment of the following amount in favour of the respondent/employee: 1/07/1998 to September 6, Rs. 79,184. 60 1999 wages 2. 90 days leave encashment Rs. 14,256. 00 3. Gratuity Rs. 43,909. 60 total Rs. 1,37,350. 20

( 3 ) THUS, the respondent was found entitled for the salary from July, 199 8/09/1999, gratuity as well as payment of 90 days' leave encashment. The Petitioner has challenged the said award. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that respondent No. 2 was admittedly employed with the petitioner as Service Technician who had resigned from service on 6/09/1999. The respondent No. 2 has filed an application before the respondent No. 1 under section 33-C (2) of U. P. Industrial Disputes act, 1947 seeking direction, for the petitioner for making good the payment to the following effect: vernacular matter omitted

( 4 ) THE petitioner has filed a reply before the Presiding Officer in which the petitioner has stated that the respondent No. 2 was not entitled or leave encashment in view of the fact that the bifr, vide its order dated 19/08/1994 had declared the petitioner a sick unit under the Sick industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 with the meaning of Section 3 (1) of the act. The respondent No. 2 has filed a reply in which it has been stated that the petitioner/company has no right to challenge the award passed by the Labour Court and they are trying to avoid their liability.

( 5 ) THE respondent No. 2 has further submitted that the petitioner's company itself was granting VRS to its employees. Some of the payments have been indicated in the annexure-1 to the counter- affidavit and details have been given in Annexure-1 dated 1/08/2000. The respondent No. 2 has further submitted that U. P. Electronic Corporation limited is a holding company of Uptron India limited, State of U. P. has nothing to do directly or indirectly with the affairs of the petitioner's company. According to the respondent No. 2, he was forced to resign on account of non-payment of regular salary and non-payment of either VR Scheme or the scheme of one time settlement.

( 6 ) THE respondent No. 2 has referred the judgment of 2000 (84) FLR 561 (All), where it has been held that recovery of gratuity cannot be prohibited under Section 22 of Sick industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. The relevant paragraphs are quoted below:"in this connection, learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that this bar was not applicable in cases of payment of gratuity. Learned counsel for the Union of India relied on a decision of the Bombay High court in support of her contention. The judgment was delivered in relation to a case between the NTC (South Maharashtra) and b. N. Jalgaonkar. It was a case of recovery of wages and a question came up for consideration whether the recovery of the wages due to workmen was also barred by the provisions of Section 22 of the SICA, 1985. The Hon'ble single Judge of the bombay High Court had before him the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of sri Chamundi Mopeds, and Dy. Commercial Tax Officer v. Coramandal pharmaceuticals and others and also some other decisions. The question was that if at all Section 22 of the SICA, 1985 was thought applicable to bar recovery of wages of workmen, the workmen would have to approach the BIFR and if such a position was allowed to prevail that would defeat the legitimate claim of the workmen for wages and other dues by non-payment in the first instance and also forc