9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2000 (11) TMI 1142 - SC - Companies LawWhether the fourth respondent continued to discharge his duty after 2-8-1989? Held that - Dues of employees up to December, 1990 were payable by the State of Orissa. This would include arrears of salary payable to the fourth respondent. In this view of the matter the High Court was wrong in directing the appellants to pay this amount. To that extent the order of the High Court is required to be and is set aside. It is clarified that the amounts due to the fourth respondent are payable by the State of Orissa. At this stage it must be mentioned that there was a dispute as to whether the fourth respondent continued to discharge his duty after 2-8-1989. As this was a disputed question of fact the High Court only directed payment of arrears for the period from 15-12-1981 till 2-8-1989. Thus no reason to vary that portion of the judgment of the High Court. The arrears of salary which will be payable by the State of Orissa to the fourth respondent will only be for the period from 15-12-1981 till 2-8-1989. The same must be paid as expeditiously as possible.
Issues:
1. Liability to pay arrears of salary to the fourth respondent. 2. Interpretation of the Scheme sanctioned by BIFR. 3. Analysis of the correspondence and MOU between the appellants and the State of Orissa. Issue 1: The main issue in this case is determining the party liable to pay the arrears of salary to the fourth respondent. The appellant contested that it was the State of Orissa's responsibility, while the State argued that the appellants were liable. The High Court had directed the appellants to pay the dues, prompting this appeal. Issue 2: To resolve the liability question, the Supreme Court analyzed the Scheme sanctioned by BIFR on 21-12-1990. The Scheme outlined that the State of Orissa was responsible for paying arrears due to employees of Corporate Branch and Sales Offices until the date of Scheme sanction. This indicated that the State of Orissa had taken over the liability for these dues. Issue 3: The Court examined the correspondence and MOU between the appellants and the State of Orissa. The MOU detailed the transfer of assets and liabilities related to TPM-3, specifying that certain liabilities were to be borne by the appellants as agreed upon in the letters and the MOU. It was clarified that only liabilities mentioned in specific documents were to be borne by the appellants, while all other liabilities remained with the State of Orissa. The Court concluded that the liability for arrears of salary to the fourth respondent was not passed on to or taken over by the appellants based on the Scheme, correspondence, and MOU. Therefore, the State of Orissa was held responsible for paying the arrears to the fourth respondent. The Court upheld the High Court's decision regarding the period for which arrears were payable, from 15-12-1981 to 2-8-1989, and directed the State of Orissa to settle this amount promptly. The appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs.
|
