JENSON NICHOLSON I LTD Vs. CONTROLING AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, an existing company within the meaning of Companies Act 1956 in this petition challenge three notices issued under the provisions of section 7 of the Bengal Public demand Recovery Act, 1913 requiring the petitioners to show cause as to why the certificates should not be executed within a period of 30 days from the date of issuance thereof. Also under challenge in this writ petition are three notices issued by the Certificate Officer, copies of which have been annexed and collectively marked "p11" to the writ petition requiring the petitioners to pay certificate demand including interest and cost. The petitioners have also applied for stay of all further proceeding in connection with the three certificate cases initiated against them. All the notices issued under section 7 of the 1913 Act are dated 14th December 2005, and have been issued in pursuance of requisition made by the Controlling Authority (respondent No. 1 herein)under the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 (the said Act in short ). Three retired employees of the petitioners, being the respondent No. 4, 5 and 6 had represented to the Controlling Authority that their gratuity dues were not being released and on the basis of such complain at the initial stage the first respondent had issued independent notices under the relevant Rules framed under the said act to the petitioners.

(2.) THEREAFTER, it appears that a tripartite settlement was arrived at on intervention of the respondent No. 1, in pursuance of which the petitioners had agreed to settle the dues of the three private respondents by paying 30% of the gratuity amount by 31st July 2004 and the rest of the amount in 10 equal installments commencing from the month of August 2004. The petitioners, however, failed to fulfil their commitment, which prompted the three superannuated persons to approach the Controlling Authority. The Controlling Authority thereafter by three separate orders, all dated 16th November 2004 allowed the applications of the private respondents, recording their individual entitlement and directed the petitioners to pay the said dues within one month.

(3.) IN the meantime it appears that the petitioners had become a sick unit and had been registered with the Board for Industrial and Financial reconstruction (BIFR) under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act 1985. I shall refer to this statute henceforth as the 1985 act. The case of the petitioners was registered with the BIFR in the year 2003, and the same was numbered as Case No. 395 of 2003.