2006 (8) TMI 645 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Re-adjudication of claims of 121 employees.
2. Statutory rate of interest on delayed payment of gratuity.
3. Statutory bonus for the period 1994-98.
4. Employer's contribution to the Provident Fund.
5. Re-adjudication of claims of 21 specific employees.
6. Ad interim reliefs.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Re-adjudication of Claims of 121 Employees:
The applicant union sought re-adjudication of claims for 121 employees concerning statutory interest on delayed gratuity, statutory bonus for 1994-98, and employer's Provident Fund contributions. The court acknowledged discrepancies in the claims and directed the Official Liquidator to re-adjudicate the claims of 21 employees specifically listed in Exhibit-E.

2. Statutory Rate of Interest on Delayed Payment of Gratuity:
The applicant argued that interest on delayed gratuity should be paid as per the Payment of Gratuity Act. The court noted that the Payment of Gratuity Act mandates interest on delayed payments. However, the court held that the liquidator is not the "employer" under the Act, and thus, the liquidator is not obligated to pay interest on delayed gratuity. The court emphasized that the liquidator's role is to make payments from existing funds and not to assume liabilities for interest on delayed payments.

3. Statutory Bonus for the Period 1994-98:
The applicant contended that the statutory bonus for the years 1994-95 to 1997-98 should be paid. The court examined the provisions of the Companies Act and the Payment of Bonus Act. It concluded that "workmen's dues" under Section 529(3)(b) of the Companies Act do not include bonus. The court emphasized that the legislature intentionally excluded bonus from the definition of "workmen's dues," and thus, the liquidator is not required to pay the bonus for the specified years.

4. Employer's Contribution to the Provident Fund:
The applicant argued that the liquidator should make the employer's contribution to the Provident Fund for the period from 1st May 1994 to 9th January 1998. The court held that the liquidator is not considered the "employer" and thus is not obligated to make contributions to the Provident Fund. The court directed the liquidator to assist the workmen in recovering their Provident Fund dues from the Provident Fund authorities.

5. Re-adjudication of Claims of 21 Specific Employees:
The court directed the Official Liquidator to re-adjudicate the claims of 21 specific employees listed in Exhibit-E within eight weeks, acknowledging discrepancies in the amounts awarded to these employees.

6. Ad Interim Reliefs:
The court did not grant ad interim reliefs as requested by the applicant union. It emphasized that the liquidator's role is to adjudicate claims and make payments from available funds, not to assume additional liabilities such as interest on delayed payments or statutory bonus.

Conclusion:
The court partially allowed the company application, directing the re-adjudication of claims for 21 specific employees. It rejected the claims for interest on delayed gratuity and statutory bonus for the years 1994-98. The court also clarified that the liquidator is not obligated to make the employer's contribution to the Provident Fund but must assist in recovering dues from the Provident Fund authorities. The application for ad interim reliefs was not granted.