1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3145 OF 2009 Vinod S. Shedekar & Anr. ..Petitioners versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. Y. M. Pendse for Petitioners. Mrs. S. S. Bhende – AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 – State. CORAM : D. D. SINHA & A. A. SAYED , JJ. DATED : FEBRUARY 25, 2010. P.C. : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 - State. 2. The counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners were the employees of the respondent no. 4 company and had preferred application under section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 for determination of the amount due from the respondent no. 4 on account of closure. The Labour Court allowed the applications except the claim of 2 gratuity. It is further contended that being aggrieved by the same, petitioners applied to the authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act and the applications preferred by the petitioners were allowed by the Controlling Authority. The Controlling Authority issued certificate under Section 8 of the Act whereby the Collector was directed to recover the amount of Rs. 22,18,481/- along with simple interest @ 15% per annum with effect from 28th February 2002 till the realisation of the amount. It is further contended that respondent no. 3 Tahsildar issued a notice to respondent no. 4 in respect of recovery of money due and payable as per the recovery certificate. However, till this date no further steps in respect of recovery of money were taken by the Tahsildar and therefore the petitioners approached this court for necessary directions to the Tahsildar to take further steps in this regard. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that if the respondent no. 4 company fails to pay the amount due and payable then the Tahsildar has to take further steps as per the procedure stipulated in the Land Revenue Code and recover the amount as land revenue. 4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader does not dispute the fact that if the respondent no.4 fails to pay the amount, the Tahsildar has to take the steps as per the procedure stipulated under the Land Revenue Code. It is 3 also stated that if there is no legal impediment then the appropriate steps shall be taken in accordance with law by Tahsildar pursuant to the certificate issued in favour of the petitioners. 5. In the back-drop of the above referred facts, we dispose of the writ petition with direction to respondent nos. 2 and 3 to take appropriate steps in view of the certificate issued by the authority under section 8 of the Payment of Gratuity Act in accordance with law and procedure applicable in this regard without further loss of time if there is no other legal impediment. (D. D. SINHA, J.) ( A. A. SAYED, J.)