Judgment B. P. Singh, J. 1. This batch of four writ-petitions involve common questions and have, therefore, been heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment In C. W. J. C. Nos.1470 and 816 of 1995 (R), the petitioners are the former employees of the respondent-Heavy Engineering Corporation, who have opted for separation under h E C. Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 1990, notified vide Circular No, 15/90, dated 22.10 90. Their option to separate has been duly accepted by the respondent Corporation in C WJ C. Nos 1778 and 3730 of 1995 (R) the petitioners are the former employees of the respondent-Corporation, who have superannuated in normal course on attaining the age of superannuation. In all the writ petitions the petitioners have made a grievance that the dues to which they are entitled by way of post retirement dues have remained unpaid in part, and a substantial amount has been withheld by the respondent-Corporation on the pretext that the respondent corporation is facing a financial crisis and is, therefore, unable to discharge its obligation towards its former employees. No doubt, the respondent-Corporation has paid such dues in part to most of its employees, but for the remaining amounts due to its former employees, it has pleaded its inability to pay the same forthwith, and has further pleaded that it shall discharge its obligation in due course as and when the financial position of the respondent-Corporation improves and it is in a position to discharge its obligation towards its former employees. 2. Several writ petitions have been filed and disposed of by this Court and a large number of such orders were shown to us at the time of hearing of this batch of writ petitions. This Court has passed orders from time to time, and in most cases, the respondent-Corporation has been directed to make the payments within the period specified in the order. This Court has also awarded interest in most of such cases. This writ-petition could also have been disposed of in the same terms, but since in these writ petitions, the respondent-Corporation has urged and additional submission based on the provisions of the Sick industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act (1 of 1986)and in particular Sec.22 thereof, it has become necessary for us to examine the plea of the respondent-Corporation. This writ-petition could also have been disposed of in the same terms, but since in these writ petitions, the respondent-Corporation has urged and additional submission based on the provisions of the Sick industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act (1 of 1986)and in particular Sec.22 thereof, it has become necessary for us to examine the plea of the respondent-Corporation. Counsel for the respondent-Corporation has urged in these petitions that in view of the provisions of the aforesaid Act, and in particular Sec.22 thereof, no proceeding for recovery of any money from the Corporation can be main tamed against the Corporation until such time as the Company recovers from us sickness and is declared so bv the Board constituted under the Act. ft has, therefore, become necessary for us to examine the provisions of the aforesaid Act, having regard to the submission urged before us by the respondent-Corporation. 3. As is well known, the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions)Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was enacted with a view to securing timely detection of sick and potentially sick companies owning industrial undertakings, the speedy determination by a body of experts of the preventive ameliorative, remedial and other measures needed to be taken with respect to such companies, and the expeditious enforcement of the measures so determined, and for other matters connected therewith, or incidental thereto. The Act gives effect to the policy of the State towards securing the principles specified in clauses (b) and (c) of Article 39 of the Constitution. Under the Act, a Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR)for short has been created to exercise the jurisdiction and powers and discharge the functions and duties conferred or imposed thereon by or under the provisions of the Act. Under Section 5, an appellate authority has been constituted. Chapter III of the Act, deals with references, inquiries and schemes. Sec.15 (1) provides that where an industrial company has become sick industrial company, the Board of directors of the Company shall within 60 days from the date of finalisation of the duly audited account of the Company for the financial year at the end of which the Company has become a sick industrial Company, make a reference to the B. I. F. R. for determination of the measures which shall be adopted with respect to the Company. For sufficient reasons, such a reference can be made even within 60 days after the formation of such an opinion pending finalisation of the duly audited accounts. Upon such reference being made, or upon information received, or upon its own knowledge as to the financial condition of the Company, the B. I. F. R. is required to make such enquiry as it may deem fit for determining whether any industrial company has become sick industrial company. Where such an enquiry is made by the B. I. F. R. , or it causes an enquiry to be made, the B. I. F. R. has been authorised under sub-section (4) of Sec.16 to appoint one or more persons to be Special Director or Special Directors of the Company for safeguarding the financial and other interest of the company. After making such an enquiry under Sec.16 of the Act, if the b. I. F. R. is satisfied that a company has become a sick industrial company, it shall, after considering all relevant facts and circumstances of the case, decide whether it is practicable for the Company to make its net worth positive within a reasonable time. If the B. I. F. R. decides that it is so possible, it shall by an order in writing give such time to the company as it may deem fit to make its net worth positive. If it decides in the negative and considers it necessary or expedient in the public interest to adopt all or any of the measures specified in section 18, it may, by a written order, direct any operating agency to prepare a scheme providing for such measures in relation to such company. Such power has been vested in the B. I. F. R. under section 17 of the Act. Under Sec.17 of the Act, the operating agency is required to prepare a scheme with respect to such company providing for any one or more of the measures specified therein. The draft scheme prepared by the b. I. F. R. is required to be sent to the sick industrial company as well as to the operating agency. After the draft scheme is finalised, it has to be sanctioned by the B. I. F. R. and then brought into force with effect from such date as the B. I. F. R. may specify in this behalf. After the draft scheme is finalised, it has to be sanctioned by the B. I. F. R. and then brought into force with effect from such date as the B. I. F. R. may specify in this behalf. Sec.20 provides that where after making an enquiry under Sec.16 of the Act, the B. I. F. R. is of the opinion that it is just and equitable to wind up the sick industrial company, it may forward its opinion in that behalf to the concerned High Court, where upon the high Court shall on the basis thereof, order winding up of the sick industrial company. Then comes Sec.22, which is most crucial and is, therefore, reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of convenience. "22. (1) Where in respect of an industrial company, an inquiry under Sec.16 is pending or any scheme referred to under Sec.17 is under preparation or consideration or a sanctioned scheme is under implementation or where an appeal under section 25 relation to an industrial company is pending, then, notwithstanding anything contained in the companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) or any other law or the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the industrial company or any other instrument having effect under the said Act or other law, no proceedings for the winding up of the industrial company or for execution, distress or the like against any of the properties of the industrial company or for the appointment of a receiver in respect thereof shall lie or be proceeded with further, except with the consent of the Board or, as the case may be, the Appellate Authority. " a careful reading of Sec.22 of the Act, reveals that it applies to an industrial company, if an enquiry under section 16 is pending or any scheme referred to under Sec.17 is under preparation, for consideration, or a sanctioned scheme is under implementation, or where an appeal under Sec.25 is pending. In such event, notwithstanding, anything contained in the Companies Act or any other law or the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the industrial company, no proceeding for winding up of the industrial company, or for the execution, distress or the like against any of the properties of the industrial company, or for appointment of a receiver shall lie or proceeded with further, except with the consent of the Board, or the appellate authority, as the case may be. The Section conceives of the proceedings (a) for winding up of the Industrial company, (b) for execution, distress or the like against any of the properties of the Industrial company or (c) for appointment of a receiver. In the instant case emphasis has been laid by the respondent-Corporation on the words "or for execution, distress or the like against any of the properties of the industrial company. " It was urged on behalf of the respondent-Corporation that a writ proceeding for payment of post retirement dues is a proceeding conceived by section 22 of the Act, which cannot proceed except with the consent of the Board. 4. Having regard to the relevant provisions of the Act, I am convinced that the plea of the respondent-Corporation that it is under no obligation to pay its retired employees their post retirement dues, in view of Sec.22 of the Act, is untenable. In the first place, there is no provision in the Act, nor is there any order of the Board, directing the respondent- Corporation not to pay to its former employees their post retirement dues. Moreover, the claim of the former employees for payment of the post-retirement dues cannot be equated with a proceeding for execution, distress or the like against any of the properties of the industrial company. The petitioners have not prayed for sale of the assets of the Company, nor have they taken out any execution proceeding. No doubt, the use of the words "execution, distress or the like" in section 22 of the Act need not necessarily be. meant legal proceedings. The word proceeding must be widely construe and may include other proceedings which may entail coercive measures that may be taken against a sick undertaking resulting in attachment or sale of its property. In sum and substance, the properties of a sick industrial company shall not be made the subject-matter of execution, distress or coercive action of similar quality and characteristic, till a reference made under Sec.15 of the act is finally disposed of by the B. I. F. R. Having regard to the object sought to be achieved by the Act, it is not necessary to go to the extent of holding that all the financial obligations which the sick industrial company may have incurred or which it may incur, are not to be discharged by it. It may be that a sick company may still be operational and carrying on its activities, such as, the respondent-Corporation. In doing so, it may incur liabilities. It may have to pay wages to its workers and may also have to pay the price of the raw materials purchased by it, and it may incur transportation charges and other charges. The Act does not conceive of a situation where the sick company may incur liabilities but refuse to discharge them even in course of its normal functioning. If such were the case, any sick company, even though it has not closed down its operations may refuse to pay wages to its workers. Such an interpretation of the provisions and the scheme of the Act would result in unreasonable results which must be avoided at all cost. In fact the scheme of the Act is to prevent the company from incurring unnecessary liabilities and to protect the assets of the company so as not to jeopardise the chances of its revival. The depletion of its assets, if permitted, may defeat the very object which the Act seeks to achieve, and it is decisively for this reason that Sec.22 of the Act does not permit a proceeding for execution, distress or the like against any of the properties of the industrial company. In the case of a sick company which has not closed its operations, its obligation to discharge the liability towards the payment of wages etc to its workmen and paying for raw materials and other expenses incurred by it in normal course of business, is not affected by any provision of the Act. Further, the act does not prevent the recovery of such dues as long as no proceeding is taken against any of the properties of the industrial company. The payment of post-retirement dues to its former employees is one such obligation which is unaffected by Sec.22 of the Act and to my mind, the respondent-Corporation cannot plead that such a liability cannot be enforced against it in a writ proceeding. Moreover, a proceeding in the nature of writ proceeding is not and cannot be barred under Section 22 of the Act. It is a different question that a writ Court may or may not exercise its discretion, having regard to the facts of the case and the relevant law applicable to the issues involved in the proceeding. 5. Moreover, a proceeding in the nature of writ proceeding is not and cannot be barred under Section 22 of the Act. It is a different question that a writ Court may or may not exercise its discretion, having regard to the facts of the case and the relevant law applicable to the issues involved in the proceeding. 5. The view that I have taken is also in consonance with the decisions of the Supreme Court on the subject. In the Gram Panchayat and another V/s. Sree vallabh Glass Works Ltd. , A. I. R.1990 s. C.1017, upon which reliance has been placed by the Counsel for the respondent-Corporation, a question arose as to whether the Panchayat could recover the amount due to it by way of property tax and other dues from out of the properties of the sick industrial company without consent of the Board. The gram Panchayat had initiated coercive proceeding under Sec.129 of the bombay Village Panchayats Act to recover a sum of Rs.9,47,000/- and odd which was stated to be the property tax and other amounts due from the Company. The High Court accepted the plea of the Company holding that the Company was entitled to the protection under Sec.22 of the Act. The supreme Court upheld the judgment of the High Court. The Court considered the scheme of the Act and held that the coercive proceedings initiated by the gram Panchayat could not proceed in view of Sec.22 of the Act. The facts of the case are so clear that there can be no doubt about the applicability of Sec.22 of the Act. In M/s. Shree chamundi Mopeds Ltd. V/s. Church of south India Trust Association, A. I. R.1992 S. C.1439, a question arose as to whether eviction proceeding are not covered by the section. It was urged on behalf of the Company in that case that the lease-hold right of a sick company in the premises leased out to it is property and since the eviction proceedings would result in the company being deprived of the said property the said proceeding would be covered by Section 22 of the Act. It was urged on behalf of the Company in that case that the lease-hold right of a sick company in the premises leased out to it is property and since the eviction proceedings would result in the company being deprived of the said property the said proceeding would be covered by Section 22 of the Act. In negativing the contention the Court held that the words "or the like" used in Sec.22 of the Act must be construed with reference to the proceeding words namely, "for execution, distress", which meant that the proceedings which are contemplated are the proceedings whereby recovery of dues is sought to be made by way of execution, distress or similar process against the property of the Company. The Court held that proceeding for eviction instituted by a landlord against a tenant who happened to be a sick industrial company could not be regarded as falling in this category. In the instant case as well, recovery of dues is not sought to be made by way of execution or similar process against the property of the company. 6. In Maharashtra Tubes Ltd. V/s. State Industrial and Investment Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. and another, (1993) 2 S. C C.144, a question arose as to whether a proceeding under Sections 25, 29 and 31 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951, could be taken during the pendency of enquiry under section 16 or preparation/consideration/sanction of scheme under Section 17 or appeal under Sec.25 of the act, in view of the provisions of Section 22-thereof Having regard to the consequences of an action under Sec.29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, the Court held that the action contemplated was undoubtedly a coercive measure directed at the take over of the management and property of the industrial concern and also conferred a further right on the Financial Corporation to transfer by way of lease or sale the properties of the said concern and any such transfer effected by the Financial Corporation vested in the transferee all rights in or of the transferred property as if the transfer was made by the owner of the property. The Court, therefore, came to the conclusion that if the Financial Corporation was permitted to resort to the provision of Sec.29 of the State Financial corporation Act, 1951, while proceedings under Sections 15 to 19 of the Act were pending, it would render the entire process nugatory In this connection, while considering the scope of Section 22 of the Act, the Court observed: - "section 22 (1) shorn of the irrelevant part provides that where an appeal under section 25 relating to an industrial company is pending, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, no proceedings for the winding up of the industrial company or for execution, distress or the like against any of properties of the industrial company or for appointment of a Receiver in respect thereof shall lie or be proceeded with further, except with the consent of the BIFR, or as the case may be, the appellate authority. The purpose and object of this provision is clearly to await the outcome of the reference made to BIFR for the revival and rehabilitation of the sick industrial company. The words or the like which follow the words execution and distress are clearly intended to convey that the properties of the sick industrial company shall not be made the subject-matter of coercive action of similar quality and character stic till the BIFR finally disposes of the reference made under section 15 of the said enactment The legisiature has advisedly used an omnibus expression the like as it could not have conceived of all possible coercive measures that may be taken against a sick undertaking. " The Court finally concluded that it was obvious on a plain reading of Sec.29 of the Slate Financial Corporation Act that it permitted coercive action against the defaulting industrial concern of the type which would be taken in execution or distress proceedings, the only difference being that in the latter case the concerned party would have to use the forum prescribed by law for the purpose of securing attachment and sale of the property of the defaulting industrial concern; whereas in the case of a Financial Corporation that right is conferred on the creditor corporation itself which is permitted to take over the management and possession of the properties and deal with them as if it were the owner of the properties. The principle laid down by the Supreme Court is clearly to the effect that the words "or the like" which follow the words "execution, and distress" are intended to convey that the properties of the sick industrial company shall not be made the subject matter of coercive action of similar quality or characteristic. A writ-petition for payment of post-retirement dues cannot be said to be a proceeding in the nature of execution or distress proceedings in which the properties of the sick industrial company are the subject-matter of coercive action of similar quality and characteristic. 7 I have, therefore, no hesitation in repelling the contention urged on behalf of the respondent-Corporation that in view of the fact that the respondent-Corporation has been declared a sick industrial company and an enquiry under section 15 of the Act is continuing, the company is either prevented from paying to its former employees the post retirement dues or the writ-jurisdiction of this Court is excluded for grant of appropriate relief to the petitioners, who claim post retirement dues lawfully payable to them 8. The petitioners who have separated under the H. E. C Voluntary retirement Scheme, 1990, have claimed various amounts which are due to them. They have claimed revised scale of pay, dearness allowance, house-rent allowance etc. which were notified by the respondent-Corporation on 14.8.91, but was effective from 1.1.1987. for a period of five years. The petitioners also claim enhanced employer s contribution to the contributory provident fund. They also claim the benefit of leave travel allowance which has been denied to them, though they have submitted the necessary bills. The petitioners who have superannuated in due course have claimed benefits which have not been paid to them so far. In C. W. J. C. No.1778/95, (R), the petitioners have given the details of he amounts due to them and it appears that all the petitioners are entitled to further payment of amounts ranging between 1,36,000/- and 6,57,000/-. Obviously, the petitioners have feft hardship on account of such heavy amounts being withheld from them Having regard to the order, which i propose to pass, it is not necessary for this Court to examine the correctness of the claims made by the petitioners and whether all their claims are justified. That is essentially a matter which the respondent-Corporation has to consider in each case. 9. That is essentially a matter which the respondent-Corporation has to consider in each case. 9. I, therefore, allow the writ petitions and issue direction to the respondent-Corporation to consider the claim of each of the petitioners and to determine the amount payable to them by way of post-retirement dues including the arrears of wages. This would include the arrears arising out of the enhancement in their pay- scales. The respondent-Corporation has pleaded that the circular allowing enhancement of scale itself provided that the payment will be made only after the Corporation notifies the day of payment under clause 16.3 of the said Circular. The plea is unreasonable because the Circular was issued on 14.8.1991 and the respondent-Corporation cannot postpone the payment indefinitely. As it is more than four and a half years have passed, and the Corporation has not notified the date of payment. It would be unreasonable and arbitrary to postpone the payment of wages due indefinitely. The respondent-Corporation is, therefore, directed to consider the case of each of the petitioners separately and convey its decision to the concerned petitioners within a period of 3 months from today. The amount found due and payable to the petitioners shall be paid within a period of 5 months from today. On the delayed payment of the dues, the respondent-Corporation shall pay interest calculated @ 12% per annum effective from the date of retirement. These writ-petitions are allowed in the above terms. Petition Allowed.