JUDGMENT Ashok Kumar Gaur, J. - This batch of writ petitions has been filed by the petitioner-employer challenging the order passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Ajmer - Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short "the Act of 1972"). 2. Learned counsel, at the outset, submitted that the petitioner-employer is not challenging the amount of gratuity, which has been granted to the employees and further the interest @ 10% Per Annum is also not challenged. The only prayer while arguing the case is to grant some more time to make payment. 3. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner company was declared as Sick Industrial Unit in terms of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 in the year 2006 and further a Rehabilitation Scheme was prepared and the same is under implementation. 4. Learned counsel submitted that the principal amount of gratuity has been paid to the employees and since, the petitioner company had not received the funds from the authorities concerned to make payment, the financial position of the petitioner company being very critical, the interest part has not been paid so far. 5. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner company has been making earnest efforts to release the amount enabling it to pay the statutory dues of gratuity to the superannuated employees of the Unit at Ajmer. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner company has produced a letter dated 14th February, 2019 written by the General Manager of HMT Machine Tools Ltd., Ajmer to the Director Finance, HMT Limited, Bangalore whereby a request was made to release Rs. 3 Crore immediately in order to pay the prolonged statutory dues of gratuity and to avoid the unsolicited legal action/attachment of bank accounts. 7. Learned counsel submitted that the employee concerned has approached the District Collector for making recovery under the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short "the Act of 1956"). 8. Learned counsel also produced one letter by SDO, Ajmer giving date of appearance before the Court on 10th May, 2019 for making payment of interest and gratuity. 9. Learned counsel argued that at least, some reasonable time may be granted to the petitioner company to pay the interest, as has been awarded by the Controlling Authority under the Act of 1972. 10. 9. Learned counsel argued that at least, some reasonable time may be granted to the petitioner company to pay the interest, as has been awarded by the Controlling Authority under the Act of 1972. 10. Learned counsel further submitted that due to paucity of funds, even the petitioner company was restrained from filing statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority against order passed by the Controlling Authority, as there is a condition of fore deposit. 11. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner company is in no way denying entitlement of the employees to receive gratuity and the interest part can also be paid but sometime is required to be given to the petitioner company to meet out the obligation, which has been imposed by the Controlling Authority. 12. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 13. This Court finds that since the petitioner company has made payment of amount of gratuity, as ordered by the Controlling Authority. The issue is with regard to payment of interest @ 10% Per Annum, as has been awarded till the date of payment, this Court finds that the petitioner company has made earnest efforts by writing letters to the Headquarters at Bangalore and since, sufficient funds have not been released, the petitioner company is facing difficulty to pay the amount of interest. 14. This Court, in no way, is questioning the order passed by the Controlling Authority and the amount of gratuity as well as interest, are required to be paid to the employees concerned. 15. This Court also cannot become oblivious of the fact that the petitioner company was declared as Sick Industrial Unit and under the Rehabilitation Scheme, the process for implementation is still on. 16. Accordingly, the prayer of learned counsel for the petitioner company seems to be reasonable and this Court finds that the petitioner company is required to be given some more time to make payment of interest and as such, three months' time is granted to the petitioner company to make payment of interest, as has been awarded by the Controlling Authority. 17. The respondents-employee are entitled to get their amount of gratuity and interest thereof and for a period of three months, no coercive action would be taken by the Revenue Authorities for recovering the amount under the provisions of the Act of 1956. 18. 17. The respondents-employee are entitled to get their amount of gratuity and interest thereof and for a period of three months, no coercive action would be taken by the Revenue Authorities for recovering the amount under the provisions of the Act of 1956. 18. The writ petitions stand disposed of with the aforesaid. 19. A copy of this order be separately placed in each connected file.