Judgment :- (PRAYER: Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the order of the first respondent in proceedings No.Tha.Pa.No.1/2004/Subsistence Allowance / A.3 dated 21.3.2004 and to quash the same.) Common Order: (K. Chandru, J.) The above Contempt Petition came up today for punishing the writ petitioner Management for disobeying the judgment of this Court dated 11.4.2005 in W.A.No.4039 of 2004. This Court by an order dated 18.7.2005 directed to post the writ petitions also along with this Contempt Petition. Accordingly, both the writ petitions were came to be posted before this Court. 2. We have heard the arguments of Mr.Vijay Narayan, learned Senior Counsel leading Mr.Parthiban, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Mr.Raja Kalifullah, learned Government Pleader representing the respondents 1 and 2, Mr.C.K.Chandrasekar learned counsel appearing for M/s Row and Reddy for respondents 3 to 46 and Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel leading Ms.AL.Ganthimathi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 47 to 49. 3. In W.P.No.11447 of 2004, the writ petitioner Management challenges the proceedings dated 21.3.2004 passed by the Tahsildar, Coimbatore North, wherein and by which, the Management was informed that as per the Revenue Recovery Certificate issued by the District Collector, they were directed to deposit the amount by way of Bank Draft failing which disciplinary proceedings will be taken against the moveable and immoveable properties of the petitioner Management. 4. In W.P.No.19439 of 2004, the same Management challenges the order of another recovery proceedings for the purpose of paying Subsistence Allowance to respondents 3 to 46 without obtaining the consent of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (for short, 'BIFR'). 5. The respondents workmen were suspended by the petitioner Management during the year 1999 but were not paid the Subsistence Allowance. Therefore, they approached the Statutory authority, viz., Assistant Commissioner of Labour under the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1981, who, by an order dated 19.3.2001, directed payment of Subsistence Allowance to the said workers and the said order became final. However, the writ petitioner Management did not implement the order thereby forcing the workmen to move the appropriate authority seeking for Revenue Recovery Proceedings. However, the writ petitioner Management did not implement the order thereby forcing the workmen to move the appropriate authority seeking for Revenue Recovery Proceedings. In the meanwhile, the petitioner Management filed a Miscellaneous Petition being W.P.M.P.No.13473 of 2004 in W.P.No.11447 of 2004 seeking for stay of the order dated 21.3.2004 passed by the first respondent directing recovery on the ground that their mill has become sick and is governed by the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act (for short, 'SICA'). However, the learned single Judge, by an order dated 26.4.2004, directed the petitioner Management to pay 50% of the amount demanded within a period of six weeks from the date of the order, as a conditional order for grant of stay. As against the said interim order, the petitioner Management filed a writ appeal being W.A.No.4039 of 2004 and a Division Bench of this Court granted an interim stay by order dated 21.02.2005. 6. In the meanwhile, the petitioner Management filed W.P.No.19439 of 2004 and obtained interim injunction restraining the first respondent from taking any steps to enforce recovery of Subsistence Allowance payable to the workmen. When the respondents workmen filed petition to vacate the stay, the learned single Judge directed the matter to be posted before the Division Bench. 7. On 11.4.2005, this Court passed an order in the Writ Appeal directing the writ petitioner Management to pay 1/3 of the amount ordered by the revenue authorities under the Payment of Subsistence Allowances Act within a period of six weeks from that date and the balance amount to be paid subject to the outcome of W.P.No.11447 of 2004. Even though the entire issue covers 44 workmen and the Management was bound to comply with the interim order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, as they failed to obey the orders, the above Contempt Petition being Cont. P.No.557 of 2005 has been filed by the workmen. 8. In the meantime, the writ petitioner Management went to the Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Civil) No.14667 of 2005, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 05.7.2006. However, no liberty was given to them to challenge the same in any other manner. Under these circumstances, the writ petitioner Management can have no objection except to pay the amount as directed by the Revenue Recovery authorities. 9. However, no liberty was given to them to challenge the same in any other manner. Under these circumstances, the writ petitioner Management can have no objection except to pay the amount as directed by the Revenue Recovery authorities. 9. The contention made in W.P.No.19439 of 2004 was seeking for a restraint on the recovery mechanism was on the plea that the writ petitioner Mill is a sick Mill coming under the provisions of SICA and, therefore the Revenue authorities must be injuncted from setting their machinery in motion. We are afraid, such a contention has no validity in the light of the Full Bench judgment of this Court reported in 2006 (5) CTC 1 [Gowri Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. Rep. By the Managing Director, Dharmapuri vs. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Sub-Regional Office, Salem and another]. The statutory bar under Section 22 of the SICA can certainly have no application in the matter of grant of subsistence allowance claim made by the workmen. Therefore, the writ petition fails and accordingly stands dismissed. 10. With reference to the other writ petition in W.P.No.19439 of 2004, the petitioner Mill has not challenged the original order of the competent authority. They have come forward only against the notice asking them to pay the arrears of Subsistence Allowance failing which revenue recovery machinery will be set in motion. We do not think that such a contention is available to the petitioner Management in the light of the above reasons and that writ petition also fails. 11. However, the counsel for the petitioner Management submits that the Mill is running smoothly and several workmen have entered into a bilateral settlements giving a go by to a substantial portion of the Subsistence Allowance and if the remaining workmen are permitted to draw the entire Subsistence Allowance, it may create unrest and mar the peaceful atmosphere in the Mill. This contention is only recorded to be rejected. Further, the counsel for the petitioner stated that Mill is not in a sound financial position and they should not be asked to pay the entire amount in one stroke. This contention is only recorded to be rejected. Further, the counsel for the petitioner stated that Mill is not in a sound financial position and they should not be asked to pay the entire amount in one stroke. For this, the writ petitioner Mill will have to blame themselves for having dragged the matter for over two years and even took up the conditional interim order on appeal to this Court as well as to the Supreme Court, thereby virtually denying the legitimate requirement of the workmen, who should have been paid the Subsistence Allowance. 12. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby direct 50% of the amount computed by the authorities under the Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, to be paid to the workmen within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and to pay the balance within eight weeks thereafter. If these conditions are not complied with, then the Revenue authorities are at liberty to invoke the recovery mechanism under the Revenue Recovery Act and recover the entire amount together with any interest that may be accrued and pay the same to the workmen covered by these two writ petitions excepting those who have already settled the issue with the Management. 13. In the light of the above direction, we do not think that we should proceed with the contempt petition against the writ petitioner management and the same is closed. In view of the same, connected Miscellaneous Petitions will also stand closed. However, there will be no order as to costs.