K.Logachandran v. The District Collector, O/o the District Collector Salem 636 0012

A company which has become sick wants to revive; whereasa poor workman who has fallen sick struggles to survive; Revivalor Survival?, which overtakes the other? Seeking answer to these questions, a poor workman who has losthis right arm while at work 10 years ago, knocks at the doors ofthis Court for justice. 2. The petitioner/workman, working in the thirdrespondent Industry, lost his right hand while at work in theyear 1998. On a claim made by him, the Commissioner for WorkmenCompensation passed an award on 03.05.2001, awarding a sum ofRs.41,137/- payable by the third respondent herein with interestat the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the accident if theamount was not deposited within 30 days from the date of receiptof a copy of the award. The third respondent did not pay theamount. At the instance of the petitioner, the Commissioner forWorkmen Compensation issued a Revenue Recovery Certificate underSection 31 of WC Act on 28.09.2005 to the first respondent andthe first respondent in turn directed the second respondent, byan order dated 23.9.2006, to recover the amount. The secondrespondent, thereafter, by his proceeding dated 08.12.2006directed the third respondent to deposit the amount in Court. Butthe third respondent, by its letter dated 28.01.2009, informedthe second respondent that the third respondent-Company hadbecome sick and the same was so declared by BIFR by order dated09.07.2002 under the provisions of Sick Industrial Companies(Special Provision) Act 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "SICA").Based on the said letter, the second respondent has expressedhis inability to recover the amount from the third respondent. Itis in these circumstances, the petitioner has come forward withthe present writ petition seeking appropriate direction to therespondents 1 and 2 to recover the amount. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for thepetitioner that Section 22(1) of SICA cannot operate against anaward made under the Workmen's Compensation Act (hereinafterreferred to as "WC" Act). He relies on a Full Bench Judgment ofthis Court in Gowri Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. rep. by the ManagingDirector, Vs Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and anotherreported in 2006(5) CTC 1.4. The third respondent has not made appearance despiteservice of notice. The learned Special Government Pleaderappearing for respondents 1 and 2 has produced a copy of theorder of B.I.F.R. made in No.333 /2001 dated 9.7.2002 and also aletter from the third respondent to the second respondent dated28.01.2009, wherein the third respondent has stated that theaward cannot be satisfied without further orders from B.I.F.R.The learned counsel has also produced a report from the secondrespondent, expressing his inability to recover the amount. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5. In order to appreciate the legal position on thissubject, at first, it would be useful to examine the scheme ofWorkmen's Compensation Act. Admittedly, it is a piece of LabourWelfare Legislation providing for payment by certain class ofemployers to their workmen of compensation for the injury byaccident. Section 3 of the Act provides that in case of anypersonal injury caused to a workmen, by accident, arising out ofand in the course of employment, his employer shall be liable topay compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Act.Section 4(A) of the Act provides, "Compensation under Section 4shall be paid as soon as it falls due". It also provides " incase where the employer does not accept the liability forcompensation to the extent claimed, he shall be bound to makeprovisional payment based on the extent of liability which heaccepts and such payment shall be deposited with the Commissioneror made to the Workman as the case may be without prejudice tothe right of the workman to make any further claim. 6.From the above provisions of the act, it could beunderstood that as soon as the compensation becomes due, theemployer is legally obliged to pay the same. The crucialexpression"falls due" came to be considered by the Hon'bleSupreme Court in NATIONAL INSURANCE CORPORATION LTD. v. MUBASIRAHAMED (2007(2)SCC 349), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court hasreiterated that the date of adjudication is the date on which theamount falls due and not the date of accident. In the case onhand, admittedly, the amount fell due on 03.05.2001. Therefore,as per Section 4(A) of the Act, the employer is bound to pay thesame on or soon after 03.05.2001. If the employer is aggrieved bythe award of compensation, within 60 days from the date ofaward, he may prefer an appeal to the High Court under Section 30of the Act. But, such an appeal by an employer shall not lieunless the memorandum of appeal is accompanied by a certificateof the Commissioner to the effect that the appellant hasdeposited with him the amount payable under the order appealedagainst. 7. The aim of the Act, as could be perceived from theabove provisions, is to ensure that the amount of compensation ispaid to the workmen as early as possible, in any event, within30 days from the date of its falling due. If it is not so paid,then under Section 31 of the Act, the Commissioner is empoweredto recover the same as arrears of land revenue as per theprovisions of the Revenue Recovery Act of 1890. 8. Let me now refer to Section 22 of the SICA, whichreads as follows:- "Section 22: Suspension of legal proceedings,Contracts etc.:(1) When in respect of an industrial company, aninquiry under Section 16 is pending or any scheme https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ referred to under Section 17 is under preparationor consideration or a sanctioned scheme is underimplementation or where an appeal under Section 25relating to an industrial company is pending, thennotwithstanding anything contained in theCompanies Act, 1956, or any other law or thememorandum and articles of association of theindustrial company or any other instrument havingeffect under the said Act or other law, noproceedings for the winding up of the industrialcompany or for execution, distress or the likeagainst any of the properties of the industrialcompany or for the appointment of a receiver inrespect there of and no suit for the recovery ofmoney or for the enforcement of any securityagainst the industrial company or of any guaranteein respect of any loans or advance g ranted tot heindustrial company shall lie or be proceeded withfurther, except with the consent of the Board, oras the case may be, the appellate authority".9.The scope and amplitude of Section 22 of SICA inrelation to various other special enactments came to beconsidered by various High Courts and the Hon'ble Supreme Courton several occasions. At this juncture, it would be worthwhile toanalyse some of those judgments. 10. In Deputy Commercial Tax Officer and others v.Corromandal Pharmaceuticals and Others (1997 (Vol 105) Sales TaxCases 327), in the concurring judgment of Hon'ble Mr.JusticeB.P.Jeevan Reddy, His Lordship has observed as follows:-"It is also a well-known fact that theproceedings before the Board of Industrial andFinancial Reconstruction take a long time toconclude and all the while the protectiveumbrella of section 22 by certain industrialcompanies-and the wide language employed inthe section is providing them a cover We aresure section 22 was not meant to breeddishonesty nor can it be so operated as toencourage unfair practices. The ultimateprejudice to public monies should not beoverlooked in the process of promotingindustrial progress. We are quite sure thatthe Government is fully alive to the situationand are equally certain that they must bethinking of necessary modifications in theAct. These few observations are meant merelyto record the need for changes in the Act." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

11.Keeping in mind the above painful observation made byMr.Justice B.P.Jeevan Reddy, let me now refer to the law laiddown by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment. Speakingfor the Bench, His Lordship Justice K.S.Paripoornan, has held asfollows:-"So, we are the view that though thelanguage of section 22 of the Act is of wideimportant regarding suspension of legalproceedings from the moment an enquiry isstarted, till after the implementation of thescheme or the disposal of an appeal underSection 25 of the Act, it will be reasonableto hold that the bar or embargo envisaged insection 22(1) of SICA can apply only to suchof those dues reckoned are included in thesanctioned scheme. Such amounts like salestax, etc., which the sick industrial companyis enabled to collect after the date of thesanctioned scheme legitimately belonging tothe Revenue, cannot be and could not have beenintended to be covered within section 22 ofthe Act. Any other construction will beunreasonable and unfair and will lead to astate of affairs enabling the sick IndustrialUnit to collect amounts due to the Revenue andwithhold it indefinitely and unreasonable.Such a construction which is unfair,unreasonable and against spirit of the statutein a business sense, should be avoided." 12.A glance through the above judgment of the Hon'bleSupreme Court would make it clear that if an amount alreadydetermined has been included in the scheme, then Section 22(1) ofSICA is an embargo to collect the amount by means of coercivesteps without permission from BIFR. In the case on hand, in theorder of the B.I.F.R., it is not known as to whether thecompensation awarded in favour of the petitioner has beenincluded in the scheme or not. In the absence of any such clearmaterial on record, I cannot hold that Section 22 of SICA wouldbe an embargo for the petitioner to enforce the award.13.Yet another principle laid down by the Hon'ble SupremeCourt in the same judgment is that the money collected by thecompany from the consumers towards tax belongs to the Governmentand the same cannot be withheld by the company, either sick ornon sick. Applying the said principle to the Workmen CompensationAct, it needs to be examined as to whether the money awarded byway of compensation becomes the money of the workman as soon asthe adjudication. I will discuss about the same later. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

14.Corromandal Pharmaceuticals and Others's case came upfor consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tata DavyLtd. Vs State of Orissa and ors (AIR 1998 SC 2298). In the saidjudgment, distinguishing the facts involved in CorromandalPharmaceuticals and Others's case, the Court held that arrears ofsales tax from the sick company cannot be recovered without firstseeking consent of BIFR in this behalf if the arrears of taxpertain to the period prior to the date of declaration of thecompany as sick by the BIFR. Thus, in respect of the tax amountfor the period subsequent to the order of BIFR, CorromandalPharmaceuticals and Others case holds the field. 15.In Aluminium Industries Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2006(133) CompCas530(ker)), while dealing with sales tax recoveryproceedings, relying on Corammandal Pharmaceutical Ltd.,s case,the Kerala High Court has held as follows:-"Only the liability or amounts covered bythe scheme would be taken in by Section 22,Section 22(1) could apply only to such ofthose dues reckoned or included in thesanctioned Scheme. Such amounts like salestax etc. which the sick industrial company isenabled to collect after the date of thesanctioned Scheme legitimately belonging tothe Revenue cannot be and could not have beenintended to be covered within Section 22 ofthe Act. The bar under Section 22 thereforewould apply only to such dues reckoned orincluded in the sanctioned Scheme forrehabilitation."16.When a question arose as to whether enforcement ofnotice under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act would be barredby Section 22 of SICA, the Gujarat High Court in EZY SlideFastners Ltd., v. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (2004 (122)Com. Cases 242 (Gujarat); after having elaborately dealt with theabove said cases of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has distinguishedsales tax and the income tax by stating that sales tax amountcollected from the consumers is the money belonging to theGovernment whereas the income tax is a tax on income of thecompany and unless income tax is paid, it does not belong to theState. On this interpretation, the Gujarat High Court has heldthat Section 22 of SICA is an embargo to enforce notice underSection 226(3) of the Income Tax Act.17.In respect of recovery of wages, the Gujarat HighCourt in Rajnagar Textile Mills No.1, Ahmedabad v. Textile LabourAssociation, Ahmedabad (1998 (93) CompCas 447 (Guj) has heldthat Section 22 of SICA is not an embargo to recover wages of theworkman from the sick company and in paragraph No.8 it has beenheld as follows:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "8. It is very clear that the pre-requisitesor condition precedents set out in Section 22(1) are totally wanting in the facts of thepresent case and there is no question ofdefeating claim with regard to the wages andwork on the basis of the provisions of Section22. Despite the wide import of the word'proceeding' as have been given by the SupremeCourt in the judgment delivered in MaharashtraTubes Limited's case (Supra) this Court doesnot find that the impugned orders passed bythe Labour Court and the Industrial Court withregard to the due wages and the work withreference to the agreement dated May 24, 1983,can be set aside so as to defeat the claim ofthe respondent association. On the basis ofthe provisions of Section 22 of the Act asaforesaid the impugned orders cannot bequashed and set aside and the embargo underSection 22 does not apply to the cases wherethe claim is with regard to the wages and onthe basis of the ratio of the Bombay HighCourt's judgment which has been rendered afterconsidering Supreme Court judgment in the caseof Deputy Commercial Tax Officer and others(Supra) this Court is of the consideredopinion that proceedings with regard to therecovery of wages and in relation to work tothe employees are not covered." 18.While dealing with the Gratuity Act in Rabindra NathBanerjee v. Certificate Officer (2006 (131) CompCas 85 (cal.))the Calcutta High Court has held that gratuity amount belongs tothe workman and so the same cannot be withheld by a sickIndustrial Company under the cover of Section 22 of SICA.Gratuity is nothing but deferred payments as earned during thelife time of service and connotes retirement benefits which arenothing but a protection under social security concept in termsof Article 41 of the Constitution of India. The same is alsoprotected further under the International Charters of HumanRights being the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948,under Article 25 Clause (1). Gratuity and retirement benefits arethe rights being an emanated fundamental right from Article 21 ofthe Constitution of India in view of the wide amplitude of themeaning of the word 'life' as envisaged under Article 21. Theright to enjoy the retirement benefits at the old age under thesocial security scheme and social welfare legislation in ademocratic State cannot be whittled down and/or negatived by anylegislations under the garb of rehabilitation of sick industry. 19.Delhi High Court had an occasion to examine whetherthe relief under Section 17(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act can https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ be withheld by a sick company in Mideast India Ltd., v.ShriK.M.Unni and others (2003 (115) CompCas 184 (Delhi)). Afterreferring to various judgments, the Court has held as follows:-"13.In view of the judicial pronouncementsnoted above, there can be no doubt that thependency of proceedings before the BIFR andinvocation of Section 22 of SICA cannot comein the way of the respondent being grantedrelief under Section 17-B of the Act...."20.The High Court of Karnataka in Indian Plywood Mfg.Co.Ltd v. Commissioner of Labour and Others (1999 (Vol.I) LLJ201) had an occasion to interpret the word "distress" as found inSection 22 of SICA. The Karnataka High Court in the said judgmenthas held as follows:-"what is barred under Section 22 of 1985Act is the execution of distress proceedingsor the appointment of the Receiver in respectof the property of the Company. The recoveryof money or for enforcement of any securityagainst the Company or any guarantee inrespect of any loan or advance guaranteed tothe Company cannot be restored to by way ofsuit in a civil Court. The impugned notice andrecovery certificate cannot be termed to bethe recovery of money by way of suit. Beingconscious of this position of law, the learnedcounsel for the Appellant has tried to impressupon us that the amount sought to be recoveredwas distress and the recovery being effectedin execution proceedings was not permissible.The word 'distress' used in Section 22 of 1985Act has to be read ejusdem generis to thewords, "no proceeding for winding upexecution, distress or the like against any ofthe properties of an industrial company."(Emphasis Supplied) 21.In Modistone Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of labour (1999(2) LLJ 1043), Justice A.P.Shah, of Bombay High Court (as he thenwas) has held as follows:- "Section 22(1) of the SICA would notoperate in the field of payment of wages,gratuity and other statutory benefits payableto the workmen".22.In yet another judgment in Girni Kamgar SanghatanaSamiti VS Khatau Mackanji Spinning and Weaving Com. Ltd. (1998(2)LLJ 264 (Bom.)) it has been held as follows:-"9.Thus, it is a settled law that it is not https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ open for the company to take shelter of Section 22in respect of the workers' wages and other dues. Afeeble attempt was made by Mr.Vasudeo todistinguish the above judgment by contending thatthe present case relates to the payment of gratuityto the workmen and since such claim is in thenature arrears, the case would be governed by thedecision of the Apex Court in Tata Davy Ltd. VsState of Orissa and ors, AIR 1998 SC 2298. I amunable to accept the submission made by the learnedcounsel for the petitioners. By no stretch ofimagination gratuity can be called arrears ofwages. The basic minimum which the workman isentitled to get is the wages and the gratuity andother statutory benefits."23. In Indian Plywood Manufacturing Company Ltd. VSCommissioner of Labour and others, (2000(2) LLN 677(Kar.)) it hasbeen held that a recovery certificate issued under Section 33(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act cannot be regarded as governedby Section 22(1) of SICA. Similar view has been taken byUttaranchal High Court in Uptron India Ltd., Vs P.O.Labour Court,2004(2) LLJ 378 and the Madhya Pradesh High Court in KediaDistilleries Vs General Secretary, Chhatisgarh Chemical MillMajdoor Sangh (2001 Lab IC 1815) (MP). A Division Bench of BombayHigh Court in Ranjan Bhagwant Kedar VS HMP Engineers Ltd., (2004(3) LLJ 939) has also held that Section 22 (1) of SICA couldhave no application to the recovery under recovery Certificateissued by the Industrial Court.24.In Modi Industries Limited VS Add.labour Commissioner,Ghaziabad and others (1993 (2)LLN, 548), the learned Judge of theAlahabad High Court has observed with pains as follows:-"if the industry cannot run withoutworkers, the workers also cannot be expectedto work without payment of their wages. Thetimely payment of the wages for which theprovisions of the Act of 1978 has beenenacted. Both the acts are thus complimentaryto each other. Section 22 cannot thus affectthe proceedings taken under Section 3 of theAct of 1978 for compelling petitioner to makepayment of the wages already accrued to theworkers".(Emphasis supplied)25.After analysing many of the above judgments includingvarious judgments of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in extensio, aFull Bench of this Court in Gowri Spinning Mills (P) Ltd.,represented by its Managing Director v. Assistant Provident Fund https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Commissioner, Sub-Regional Office (2006(5) CTC 1) has held asfollows:-"For all the aforesaid reasons, we are of theconsidered view that the provident fund dues underthe EPF Act are not covered by Section 22(1) of theSICA and the provident fund benefits which theemployees are entitled to cannot be placed on thesame footing as taxes of the Gvoernment or dues ofother Commercial Venture or dues to Corporation orlike others. In the result, Writ AppealNos.173,230 & 583 of 2006 as well as W.P.Nos.41166of 2005 and 1662 of 2006 are dismissed with costs.The appellants are given three months' time to makepayment of the provident fund dues as per thedetermination made by the Provident FundAuthorities."(Emphasis Supplied)26. By a close reading of all the above judgments and theFull Bench judgment of this Court, the following principles couldbe culled out:-(i)Any amount which had already fallen due and covered by thescheme or any proceeding under the SICA will fall within theembargo of Section 22 of SICA.(ii)The wages, gratuity and other statutory benefits payableto the workman shall not fall within the embargo of Section 22(1)of SICA.(iii)Wages to be paid to workman under Section 17(B) of theIndustrial Disputes Act are not covered within the embargo ofSection 22(1) of SICA.(iv)Recovery certificate issued under Section 33(C) of theIndustrial Disputes Act and similar recovery certificates issuedunder other enactments pertaining to labour legislations wouldnot fall within the embargo of Section 22(1) of SICA.(v)Taxes such as sales tax, Central Excise etc., which arecollected from the customers and others by the company belong tothe State and the sick industrial company cannot withhold saidpayment by taking re-course to Section 22(1) of SICA.(vi)Any amount due which does form part of the day to dayoperation of the company are not covered by the embargo underSection 22(1) of SICA. 27.If the above principles are applied to the workmenCompensation award, there can be no difficulty in holding thatsuch a compensation payable to a workman is a statutory benefitpayable by the employer. The right to get workmen compensation,though a statutory right, in deed, emanates from right to lifeguaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. So, theembargo under Section 22(1) of SICA cannot be made applicable toproceedings in respect of recovery of workmen compensation. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

28.A recovery certificate issued under Section 31 of WCAct can be equated to a certificate issued under Section 33(C) ofthe Industrial Disputes Act. It has been consistently held byvarious High Courts, that the authorities can enforce suchcertificates issued under Section 33(C) of the IndustrialDisputes Act despite the fact that the company has become sickand so declared by the BIFR. While that be so, hardly can therebe any reason to hold that a certificate issued under Section 31of the Workmen's Compensation Act alone cannot be enforcedfurther by the authorities. Thus, Section 22(1) of SICA cannot bean embargo to proceed further to enforce a certificate underSection 31 of the Workmen's Compensation Act.29.Yet another reason also finds favour with the aboveconclusion. As held in various judgments referred to above,Section 22(1) of SICA is an embargo only in respect of thosetransactions which do not form part of the day to day operationof the company. Surely, a compensation payable to a workman underthe Workmen Compensation Act does form part of the day to dayoperation of the company. As I have already stated, as soon anthere is an adjudication order passed by the Commissioner forWorkmen Compensation, the amount falls due. As reflected inSection 4(A) and various other provisions of the Workmen'sCompensation Act, as soon as the amount falls due, the company isliable to pay the same to the workman concerned. Even if anappeal is sought to be made challenging the award, the employeris required statutorily to deposit the entire compensationawarded as a condition precedent. These provisions would go toindicate that as soon as the amount becomes due, though the moneyis retained by the company without making immediate payment, themoney belongs to the workmen. Therefore, as held by the FullBench of this Court in Gowri Spinning Mills (P) Ltd., v.AssistantProvident Fund Commissioner's case (cited supra), since thecompensation amount belongs to the workmen, though it is withheldor retained by the employer, Section 22(1) of SICA cannot placeany embargo for recovery of the same.30.The above conclusions arrived at by me are fortifiedby the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Duttatraya LaxmanKulkarni v. Aurangabad Paper Mills Ltd., (2000(87) FLR 173)wherein, while dealing with Workmen's Compensation Act, the Courthas held that Workmen Compensation award would not fall withinthe embargo of Section 22(1) of SICA. 31.Though it is true that the laudable object of SICA is torevive and rehabilitate the sick industries as quickly aspossible, it cannot be forgotten that the object of Workmen'sCompensation Act is more laudable which has been enacted torehabilitate the Workmen who have suffered injuries or thedependents of the workmen who lost their lives. The Company,being a big organisation, may find its many ways to rehabilitate https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ itself.But, the workmen cannot be expected to find resourcesother than the resource provided under the Workmen's CompensationAct to rehabilitate. The Workmen Compensation Act, being a pieceof welfare legislation for the benefit of the workmen, shouldreceive a correct interpretation so as to accomplish the welfareof the workmen. If a different interpretation is made,I am sure,it would be to the detriment of the workmen and the same wouldkeep the object of the Workmen's Compensation Act in coldstorage. One cannot expect the poor workmen who have lost theirlimbs to wait for the company getting rehabilitated in due courseof time. When it is the question of revival or rehabilitation forthe sick industrial Company, it is the question of survival forthe poor workmen.A workman like the one in the instant case,whohas lost his limb, if, made to suffer without compensation amountbeing paid, then the result would be disheartening. Not only he,but his entire family would be left in the lurch. Such aconstruction of any provision of law adding to the miseries ofthe poor cannot be allowed to be made. Though several measureshave been taken by means of various enactments to ensure thesecurity and safety of the workmen, it also happens that workmeneither lose their lives or sustain serious injuries while atwork. If timely compensation is not paid to them, then, it wouldamount to adding insult to the injury. This Court cannot be blindto the agonies and anguish of the poor workmen when they knock atthe doors of this Court praying for justice. As I have alreadyheld, the moment, the compensation amount falls due, it becomesthe amount of the workmen. The Company either sick or non-sickhas no right to retain the said amount without paying the same.Having regard to all the above, I do not have even a semblance ofhesitation to hold that Section 22(1) of SICA shall not put anembargo on the recovery proceedings initiated under the RevenueRecovery Act, on the basis of a certificate issued under Section31 of the Workmen's Compensation Act.32.Now, let me refer to the order of BIFR dated09.07.2002. In paragraph 10(k) of the order the Board hasdirected as follows:-" The Company shall not dispose of, lease out,encumber or alienate in any way any of its fixedor current assets without specific prior approvalof BIFR and the charge-holders under Section 22-Aof the Act. However, the current assets could beutilized for running day to day operations,subject to keeping proper records thereof androuting all transactions through the account withthe company's financing bank only."33.The above clause in the BIFR order would go to showthat the BIFR has given free hand to the company to utilise itscurrent assets for running of the day to day affairs of thecompany. There can be no doubt that the payment of wages, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ gratuity and workmen compensation form part of the day to dayoperation of the company. Since the BIFR itself has given such afree hand to the company, it is not at all fair on the part ofthe third respondent to refuse to pay the workman compensation bytaking an untenable plea of embargo under Section 22(1) of SICA.It should be noted that the petitioner lost his right hand in theyear 1998 and adjudication award was made in the year 2001 butstill, the petitioner is not able to get the benefit ofcompensation. The pain and anguish of such a poor workman isunderstandable. The long arm of the Court under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India, if not extended, the armless man'slife would be further put in perils. As I have already concluded,this is a very appropriate situation where the power underArticle 226 of the Constitution of India should be exercised infavour of a poor litigant like the petitioner. 34. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. Therespondents 1 and 2 are directed to recover the amount as per theCertificate issued by the Commissioner in accordance with theprovisions of Revenue Recovery Act expeditiously, preferablywithin three months from the date of receipt of a copy of thisorder. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is Closed.pal/jbmSd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo1. The District Collector, O/o the District Collector Salem 636 0012. The Tahsildar, Taluk office, Salem 636 001TM(CO)SR/11.3.2009 Order made inW.P.No.531 of 2008