2021 (3) TMI 755 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Settlement of claims of employees under Liquidation process - revised claim filed claiming salary, LTA, bonus and gratuity - applicants submit that due to inadvertence and oversight the form-D filed in the month of January, 2019 did not include gratuity amount receivable by them from the corporate debtor - HELD THAT - The revised claims were filed by the applicants in these applications belatedly and the resolution professional has received the claims only after the approval of the resolution plan by the CoC. Further the individual claims filed by the applicants were already admitted by the resolution professional. In view of this there is no merit in the applications filed by the applicants, accordingly both the applications are dismissed. However, this Bench during the hearing of the approval of resolution plan required the resolution applicant to come forward with some payment so that these employee applicants will get some benefits and considering the same, the resolution applicant has agreed to make a payment of ₹ 11,00,000 to the resolution professional which will be distributed to all the employees/workers equally, apart from the payment provided in the resolution plan. The resolution applicant sent to resolution professional, has confirmed and revised the plan amount accordingly - Application allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the revised claims filed by the applicants can be accepted after the approval of the resolution plan.
2. Whether the applicants are entitled to claim salary, LTA, bonus, and gratuity as workmen's dues under Section 326 of the Companies Act, 2013.
3. Whether the possession and rights of the Colaba property can be handed over to the law firm, M/s. Amicus Dictum and Associates.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Acceptance of Revised Claims Post-Approval of Resolution Plan:
The applicants in M.A. Nos. 3263 and 3879 of 2019 filed revised claims for salary, LTA, bonus, and gratuity after the approval of the resolution plan by the Committee of Creditors (CoC). The resolution professional (RP) rejected these claims, citing that they were submitted belatedly and after the resolution plan had been approved. The Tribunal noted that the revised claims were indeed filed late, and the original claims had already been admitted. The Tribunal emphasized that the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) is a time-bound process, and claims must be submitted within the prescribed timelines to avoid jeopardizing the resolution plan and potentially leading the company into liquidation. Consequently, both applications were dismissed.

2. Entitlement to Claim as Workmen's Dues:
The applicants argued that they were entitled to claim their dues as workmen under Section 326 of the Companies Act, 2013. However, the RP contended that the applicants were employees and not workmen of the corporate debtor. The Tribunal did not find merit in the applicants' argument, as the RP had already accepted their original claims. The Tribunal upheld the RP's position that the revised claims could not be accepted post-approval of the resolution plan, reinforcing the importance of adhering to the CIRP timelines.

3. Possession and Rights of Colaba Property:
In M.A. No. 528 of 2020, the applicants requested that the possession and rights of the Colaba property be handed over to M/s. Amicus Dictum and Associates, a law firm, in exchange for satisfying the dues payable to the applicants. The Tribunal found this request to be without merit, noting that the law firm was a total stranger to the proceedings and appeared to be attempting to acquire the property of respondent No. 2 under false pretenses. The Tribunal dismissed this application, emphasizing that the property was not considered an asset of the corporate debtor in the CIRP and had been valued at zero in the resolution plan.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed all applications, highlighting the importance of adhering to the prescribed timelines in the CIRP and rejecting the belated revised claims. The Tribunal also dismissed the request to hand over the Colaba property to the law firm, finding it to be an attempt to improperly acquire the property. The resolution professional was instructed to distribute ?11,00,000 to the employees/workers equally, as agreed upon by the resolution applicant.