ORDER
Girish Chandra Gupta, J.
1. This appeal is directed against an order dated 14-7-1999 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition. The learned Judge directed as follows :
“Let a writ of mandamus be issued directing the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to take all steps in accordance with law to revise in the pay of the petitioner and other staffs of the school so that the same becomes at par with those of the staffs of non-Government aided secondary institution/school as prescribed by the State Government and, therefore, the condition for grant of recognition of the school is fulfilled.”
2. Mr. Saptangshu Basu appearing in support of the appeal did not challenge the order on merits. His contention was that the appellant who was the respondent No. 1 in the writ petition is a BIFR company and, therefore, the impugned order which is in effect an order for payment of money should not have been passed. He placed strong reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of N.T.C. (I.D.A.) Employees Association v. Union of India and contended that the writ petitioners should approach the BIFR for relief, if any. He has brought to our notice that the BIFR by an order recommended that the appellant should be wound up. The order of the BIFR was challenged before this Court in writ jurisdiction and an order has been passed directing the BIFR to consider the scheme for revival of the unit, if it is submitted within three months from the date of the order, i.e., 13-2-2001.
3. The factual position emerging from the aforesaid is that the appellant was declared a sick company under the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (‘the Act’). After the Board came to the conclusion that the company is unable to make its net worth positive, it recommended that the company should be wound up. The order of the BIFR has in fact and reality been upheld by this Court in its writ jurisdiction wherein the learned Single Judge held as follows :
“There is, therefore, no just reason to interfere with the order which has been passed by the BIFR.”
4. The order directing the BIFR to consider the scheme passed by the learned Single Judge in writ jurisdiction is as follows :
“It would be proper to request the BIFR to consider any other revival scheme that may be filed either by the petitioners or any other Employees Union or the Government of West Bengal or the Confederation of Indian Industries or any member thereof at an early date and thereupon to take a decision on such scheme with a further request to the BIFR not to transmit its opinion to this Court, until such scheme, if any, given by anyone is considered and decided by it to its satisfaction provided, however, such scheme is filed within a period of three months from today.”
5. The time granted by the learned Single Judge for the purpose of filing scheme is three months from the date of the order. The order was passed on 13-2-2001. The present appeal was heard on 11-5-2001, Mr. Bose has not submitted, appearing for the appellant, that any scheme for revival was either filed as directed by the learned Single Judge or was in contemplation to be filed within the stipulated time. In that view of the matter, the fact that by the order dated 13-2-2001 the BIFR was directed to consider a scheme to be filed loses all its importance. The position really is that the appellant is a sick company and the appellant has been recommended to be wound up by the BIFR. It goes without saying that a case like this does not come within the four corners of Section 22 of the Act. As a matter of fact, Mr. Bose appearing for the appellant has not submitted before us that in the facts of the case the aforesaid section of the Act has any manner of application.
6. The judgment of the Supreme Court relied upon by the appellant, in our view, has no application to the facts of this case because in the case before their Lordships the revival package question was pending before the BIFR and the office memo which was sought to be executed provided that the pay revision and grant of other benefits will be allowed in the event the unit is decided to be revived. In those circumstances their Lordships directed the writ petitioners to approach the BIFR and adjourned the special leave petition.
7. In the present case before us, no proceeding is pending before the BIFR which has washed off its hands by recommending winding up of the appellant-company. Therefore, question of resorting to the BIFR for any relief does not and cannot arise. Section 22 does not apply to the facts of this case. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant advanced no other ground in support of the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
8. There will be no order as to costs.
Mathur, CJ.
9. I agree.