JUDGMENT : This Appeal is directed against the order dated January 13, 1999 passed by the learned single Judge whereby the matter has been kept in abeyance till the final orders are passed by the B.I.F.R. and the case has been adjourned to December 20, 1999. The impugned order was passed by the learned Judge in view of the order dated December 30, 1998 passed by the B.I.F.R. u/s 22(3) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (the said Act). 2. The order dated December 30, 1998 passed by the B.I.F.R. is in fact in continuation of its earlier order passed on December 12, 1997. 3. We have perused both the orders i.e. dated December 12, 1997 as also dated December 30, 1998. We have also perused the applications filed by the National Textile Corporation on the basis of which these orders were passed. A perusal of these two orders as also the application makes it clear that what was suspended was the recovery proceedings etc. in respect of the applicant-company of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Commissioner of Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Maharashtra and Central Excise authorities in Maharashtra and Goa and all or any of the rights, privileges, obligations and liabilities occurring or arising in contracts, settlements and awards in respect thereof. 4. We are unable to accept the contention that reference to these bodies was on account of typographical error. It also deserves to be noticed that annexures to the application u/s 22(3) of the Act also set out the overdue payments on account of provident fund/ESIC and the payments due to the Excise Department. There is no whisper in the application about the employees with which the Writ Petition is concerned. The use of words 'Standing Order' in the two orders cannot be considered in isolation and has to be seen in the context of ESIC, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and Central Excise authorities. The appellate authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction in its order dated September 9, 1998 has also observed that the appellant is not one of these organisations. Therefore, orders dated December 12, 1997 and December 30, 1998 are not applicable to the appellant. 5. In this view, we are unable to sustain the order dated January 13, 1999. It is accordingly set aside. The matter will be placed before the learned single Judge for hearing. Appeal is disposed of accordingly. Therefore, orders dated December 12, 1997 and December 30, 1998 are not applicable to the appellant. 5. In this view, we are unable to sustain the order dated January 13, 1999. It is accordingly set aside. The matter will be placed before the learned single Judge for hearing. Appeal is disposed of accordingly. 6. As the Appeal is disposed of, Notice of Motion in Appeal No. 235 of 1998 does not survive and it is disposed of.