1997 (12) TMI 521 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues:
Application for winding up under section 433(e) of the Companies Act, 1956 based on non-payment of salary and resignation dispute.

Analysis:
The petitioners were appointed as trainees/captains with a stipend later increased to a monthly salary of Rs. 60,000 and then Rs. 75,000. Allegations include irregular and partial salary payments, non-acceptance of resignation, and non-payment of due salary despite statutory notices. The respondent denied the claims, stating the petitioners were not entitled to a salary revision and had training obligations as per agreements.

The main issues framed were whether the respondent-company is liable for winding up as alleged and to what relief. The petitioners argued the unpaid salary constituted a debt, emphasizing that resignation takes effect only upon acceptance. The respondent contended that salary is remuneration, not a debt, citing a previous case and argued against using section 433 for debt recovery during a dispute.

The judgment referred to legal definitions of debt and established that unpaid salary qualifies as a debt recoverable from the employer. It discussed the nature of resignation, acceptance, and entitlement to compensation, analyzing clauses in the agreement regarding liquidated damages and resignation conditions. The court highlighted the need for evidence to determine if the petitioners failed obligations and were liable for damages.

The court rejected the petition, finding a bona fide dispute raised by the respondent, which should be resolved in a civil court. The petition was dismissed at the admission stage, allowing the petitioners to pursue their claim through a separate lawsuit for recovery. The judgment emphasized the complexity of factual questions and the need for evidence to decide on issues related to resignation, damages, and obligations.