1964 (9) TMI 36 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues:
1. Implementation of claims by the respondent.
2. Compensation for termination of employment under Industrial Disputes Act.
3. Entitlement to notice-pay for one month under Industrial Disputes Act.

Analysis:

1. The first issue raised in the appeal was regarding the implementation of claims by the respondent, the official liquidator, which were allowed by Raman Nayar J. The appellant, General Secretary of the Employees' Union, raised concerns about non-implementation of certain benefits like dearness allowance and salary increments. However, the court deemed this matter not suitable for appeal as the respondent assured full implementation of the order by Raman Nayar J.

2. The second objection pertained to the compensation for termination of employment under the Industrial Disputes Act. The contention was that the termination compensation should not be limited to a maximum of average pay for three months due to alleged mismanagement leading to the bank's winding-up. The court rejected this argument, emphasizing that the winding-up was a result of unavoidable circumstances beyond the bank's control, as mandated by the High Court's order. The court concurred with Raman Nayar J. that mismanagement leading to winding-up did not affect the applicability of the compensation provision.

3. The third ground of attack focused on the entitlement of workers to notice-pay for one month under the Industrial Disputes Act. The employees were discharged after the winding-up order, and the question arose whether the notice under section 445(3) of the Companies Act applied. The court considered whether the subsequent employment under the liquidator constituted a new employment or a continuation of the earlier one. Citing relevant legal provisions and precedents, the court concluded that the winding-up order acted as a discharge notice for the employees, and subsequent employment did not entitle them to additional notice-pay.

In conclusion, the court upheld the order of Raman Nayar J., confirming the compensation and benefits as per the Industrial Disputes Act and Companies Act. The appeal was dismissed with costs, affirming the decisions made regarding the issues raised in the appeal.