Judgment :- Abdul Gafoor, J. An important issue has come up to he resolved - whether Government can stay the revenue recovery proceedings initialed to recover the amounts due under the orders of the authorities set up under the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 or the Payment of Wages Act 1936 or whether they can grant instalment facilities to an employer who defaulted in payment of such amount determined by the respective quasi judicial authorities. 2. The petitioner was an employee under the 5th respondent. Gratuity due to him was not paid He moved the Authority constituted under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The Authority, by Ext. P1, directed the fifth respondent to pay the petitioner an amount of Rs.29,665.57 within 30 days from 3.11.1992 and in default thereof within 15% interest 3. Claiming arrears of wages due from the 5th respondent, the petitioner approached Payment of Wages Authorities (Labour Court), Kollam under section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act 1936. The authority passed Exl.P2 order directing the 5th respondent to pay the petitioner an amount of Rs. 37,380/- within a month from 2.3.1993. 4. The 5th respondent committed default and did not pay the amount covered by Exts. P1 and P2. The petitioner moved for recovery of the amounts due under Exts. P1 and P2. "The first respondent initiated action through respondents 2 and 3. The 5th respondent approached this Court in O.P. Nos. 15403/93 and 8153/94. This court stayed the recovery proceedings. When the petitioner moved, the stay order against recovery of the amount covered by Ext. P2 was made conditional on the 5th respondent remitting Rs. 25,000/- within six. weeks from 27.9.1994. This is evident from Ext. P3. The 5th respondent did not comply with the condition. So the stay order lost its efficacy and it was made so clear by this Court as per Ext. P4 order. The stay order against recovery of the amount covered by Ext. PI was not extended. Thus in effect there are no slay orders from this court against recovery of the amounts covered by Ext. P1 and P2. In these circumstances the petitioner requested respondents 2 and 3 to continue the recovery proceedings. They are not doing any thing. P4 order. The stay order against recovery of the amount covered by Ext. PI was not extended. Thus in effect there are no slay orders from this court against recovery of the amounts covered by Ext. P1 and P2. In these circumstances the petitioner requested respondents 2 and 3 to continue the recovery proceedings. They are not doing any thing. The petitioner submits that this is because, the 4th respondent-State has been approached by the 5th respondent and the former has passed an order directing the latter to permit the amount in instalments, in effect the recovery stood stayed. 5. It is in the above circumstances that the petitioner has approached this- court for a direction to respondents land 3 to take immediate revenue recovery steps to realise the amounts covered by Exts P1 and P2 and for a declaration that the Government or Collector has no power to stay or grant instalment facility, when amounts covered by Exts. P1 and P2 are sought to be recovered. 6. At the time of hearing it is submitted by the Govern net Pleader that Government has granted instalment facility to the 5th respondent to discharge the liability under Exts.P1 and P2. Thus in effect recovery was stayed. 7. Exts. P1 and P2 have become final the 5th respondent cannot dispute the liability arisen out of Exts. P1 and P2. These are the orders issued by quasi judicial authorities constituted under the two labour welfare legislation mentioned above. 8. Payment of gratuity is a liability cast on the employer. When the amount so payable is determined by the authority as contained in section 7 of the Gratuity Act as per Ext. P1, the 5th respondent shall pay the amount so directed. On his default, the employee can seek recovery of the said amount as provided in section 8 of the Act. 9. Sec. 8 provides for mode of recovery. As per this, the Collector shall recover the amount with interest as "arrears of land revenue". For that the procedure provided in the Revenue Recovery Act shall be set in motion. Even then the recovery is as provided in the Payment of Gratuity Act and not under Revenue Recovery Act. 10. Sec. 83 of the Revenue Recovery Act confers power on Government or Board of Revenue to pass such order as it thinks fit in proceedings "under this Act". Even then the recovery is as provided in the Payment of Gratuity Act and not under Revenue Recovery Act. 10. Sec. 83 of the Revenue Recovery Act confers power on Government or Board of Revenue to pass such order as it thinks fit in proceedings "under this Act". Even if the amount due under Ext. P1 is recovered as arrears of land revenue, it is recovery proceedings as contemplated under Sec. 8 of the Payment of Gratuity Act and not a proceeding under the Revenue Recovery Act. Therefore the power under Section 83 of the Revenue Recovery Act cannot extend to the recovery of gratuity due to an employee from his erstwhile employer as provided in section 8 of the Gratuity Act. 11. It has another facet also. When there is dispute regarding gratuity, the statute provides for a machinery to resolve it. It is of quasi judicial nature. Once the dispute is resolved finally, no authority can touch the order so passed. That will be transgression on the statutory proceeding and negation of the statute itself. Government is expected to aid and help the implementation of such order. On the other hand, if Government interferes with the order of quasi judicial authorities, that will be negation of rule of law which we cannot think of in our democratic polity, 12. There is again a more important aspect. When the amount payable is determined, under Sec.7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, Government shall aid and help the party who seeks enforcement of the order. On the other hand, if Govt. stays Hie order or passes an order in favour of the employer to pay the amount in instalments which is not contemplated by the statute or even if so contemplated is within the domain of the statutory quasi judicial authority, the action of Government will amount to "enabling, a person to avoid such payment". This is an offence punishable under Section 9 of the Act with imprisonment which may extend to six months. This action of Government amounts to an offence. Such an offence can be taken cognizance only on a complaint made by or under the authority of the Government as per section 11 of the Act. The Government is thus acting like a violator of law to be punished with imprisonment. 13. This action of Government amounts to an offence. Such an offence can be taken cognizance only on a complaint made by or under the authority of the Government as per section 11 of the Act. The Government is thus acting like a violator of law to be punished with imprisonment. 13. The parameters of the State action is fixed in article 38 of the constitution of India. The state shall strive to promote the welfare of the people. That strife shall be with tile object of securing and protecting as effectively as it may, a social order in which justice, social, economic and political shall inform all the institutions of the national life. A Government which is expected to have this sphere of activity cannot assume the role of a violator of law to be punishable with imprisonment. 14. Ext. P2 is an order of Labour Court, constituted as an Authority under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act 1936, to decide the dispute regarding deduction from wages or delay in payment of wages. The 5th respondent is liable to obey it. Default in payment of the amount covered by Ext. P2 shall invite recovery proceedings as provided in Section 15(5) of the Act. That Act also does not contain any provision enabling the Government to stay the recovery of amount. 15. The Government has also no power to grant instalment facility to discharge the liabilities arising out of Exts. P1 and P2. These are the orders of quasi judicial Authorities set up under the provisions of two enactments. The said authorities have resolved the disputes after considering the contentions on either side and directed payment. That authority or any appellate authority can grant instalment facilities. Such facility has not been given as per Exts. P1 and P2. The order passed by those quasi judicial authorities cannot be violated by the executive au theory set up to execute those orders. The statutes do not confer such power. 16. Therefore the proceedings initiated by respondents 1 to 3 recover the amount due to the petitioner under Exls. P1 and P2 shall be continued or fresh proceedings shall be initiated against the 5th respondent as provided under the respective enactments within two weeks of receipt of this order. The Government or the Collector has no power to stay. 16. Therefore the proceedings initiated by respondents 1 to 3 recover the amount due to the petitioner under Exls. P1 and P2 shall be continued or fresh proceedings shall be initiated against the 5th respondent as provided under the respective enactments within two weeks of receipt of this order. The Government or the Collector has no power to stay. More over, in the Original Petitions tiled by the 5th respondent, this court did not grant unconditional stay nor grant instalment facility. In such case, when Government is made aware of it, at least through notice in this Original Petition, they should have vacated their order, leave apart the statutory provisions examined above. The Government or the Collector has no power to stay recovery amounts covered by Exts. P1 and P2. They have also no power to grant instalment facility; as the 5th respondent has to discharge his liability as per Exts. P1 and P2, except with the consent of the petitioner. The Original Petition is thus allowed. There will be no order as to costs.