T VENKATESAN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has prayed for issuing a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to initiate further action under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1864, to recover a sum of Rs.80,979/- with interest at 10 per cent per annum from the third respondent.

(2.) The undisputed fats in brief are as follows:- The petitioner was employed under the third respondent and ultimately retired from service in June 1999. The third respondent has not paid the amount payable towards gratuity forcing the petitioner to file P.G. case No.146 of 2000 under Section 7 of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour. By order dated 16-10-2000, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour issued a direction to the third respondent to pay a sum of Rs.80,979/- with interest at the rate of 10% per annum. However, since the amount remained unpaid, on the petition of the petitioner, the Assistant Commissioner issued a certificate under Section 8 of the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act for realisation of the amount. Since no action had been taken on the certificate by respondents 1 and 2, the petitioner has filed several applications before such authority. Subsequently, the petitioner was informed that the second respondent has been directed to recover the amount from the third respondent and thereafter a distraint order has been issued, but the amount is yet to be realised. The petitioner has filed this writ petition to take effective steps for realisation of the amount.

(3.) Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the third respondent wherein while denying the various allegations made, it was indicated that the matter is pending before B.I.F.R. under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 and in view of the provisions contained in Section 22 of the said Act, no coercive action should be taken without obtaining the leave from the Appellate Authority under the said Act.