Recovery of earned wages remains enforceable despite sick company protection, and authorities must act on the Labour Court certificate.

Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 does not bar recovery of earned wages due to a workman under a Labour Court recovery certificate. The provision suspends proceedings such as winding up, execution, distress and suits for money recovery against a sick industrial company, but it was construed not to defeat enforcement of workers' wage claims. The workman's entitlement under section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 remained enforceable, and the recovery authorities were required to proceed under the Bombay Land Revenue Code on the Labour Court's certificate.

---

---

Issues: Whether section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 barred recovery of wages due to a workman under a Labour Court recovery certificate and prevented the authorities from initiating recovery under the Bombay Land Revenue Code.

Analysis: The claim arose from wages awarded by the Labour Court and sought to be realised through recovery machinery. Section 22(1) suspends proceedings such as winding up, execution, distress, and suits for recovery of money against a sick industrial company, but the provision was construed not to defeat the recovery of earned wages of workmen. The claim for wages was treated as distinct from the kinds of proceedings contemplated by section 22, and the workman's entitlement under section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was held to remain enforceable. The clarification recorded by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction that workers' dues were not being stayed also supported that conclusion.

Conclusion: Section 22(1) did not bar recovery of the petitioner's wages, and the authorities were bound to proceed on the Labour Court's recovery certificate.

---