Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2017 (3) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2017 (3) TMI 1190 - HC - Companies Law


Issues Involved:
1. Whether an employee can maintain a Petition for winding up of a Company under section 439 read with sections 433(e) and 434(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 1956 as a creditor based on the claim of the recovery of his unpaid salary and wages?
2. Whether a Trade Union can file a Petition for winding up of a Company to espouse the cause of a workman or workmen who are members of such a Trade Union?

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Employee's Right to File Winding Up Petition
The primary question was whether an employee could file a winding-up petition under section 439 read with sections 433(e) and 434(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 1956, based on unpaid salary and wages. The Petitioner, an employee of the Respondent Company, claimed unpaid salary from October 2009 to March 2012 and sought winding up of the Company due to its inability to pay debts. The Respondent Company contended that the Petitioner, being an employee, could not be considered a creditor under the Companies Act, 1956, citing a previous judgment (Mumbai Labour Union vs M/s Indo French Time Industries Ltd., 2002).

However, the Petitioner referred to the Full Bench decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Jonathan Allen vs Zoom Developers Pvt. Ltd. and a Delhi High Court judgment (Argha Sen v/s Interra Information Technologies (India) (P) Ltd.), which distinguished the Mumbai Labour Union case. The learned Single Judge, unable to agree with the Mumbai Labour Union decision, referred the matter to a Larger Bench.

Upon review, it was noted that the Mumbai Labour Union judgment had already been overruled by a Division Bench in Khandelwal Tube Mill Kamgar Sangh, Kanhan v/s Government of Maharashtra, which allowed workmen to file a winding-up petition as creditors. Consequently, the Bench concluded that an employee could maintain a winding-up petition under the relevant sections of the Companies Act, 1956, as a creditor based on unpaid salary and wages.

Issue 2: Trade Union's Right to File Winding Up Petition
The second issue was whether a Trade Union could file a winding-up petition on behalf of its members. The Bench examined the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, and the Trade Unions Act, 1926. Section 434 of the Companies Act creates a deeming fiction that a company is unable to pay its debts if it neglects to pay a sum exceeding ?1,00,000/- within three weeks of a demand notice. Section 439 specifies who can file a winding-up petition, including creditors.

The Trade Unions Act, 1926, defines 'trade dispute' to include disputes related to employment terms and conditions, including unpaid wages. Section 13 of the Trade Unions Act grants registered Trade Unions the status of a body corporate with the ability to sue and be sued. Section 15 allows Trade Unions to spend funds on prosecuting or defending legal proceedings to secure or protect their rights or those of their members.

The Bench concluded that a Trade Union could file a winding-up petition on behalf of its members under section 439 of the Companies Act, 1956. This is because unpaid wages make the workmen creditors, and section 15 of the Trade Unions Act permits the Trade Union to take up such causes.

Conclusion:
The Bench held that an employee could maintain a winding-up petition as a creditor based on unpaid salary and wages under sections 439, 433(e), and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956. Additionally, a Trade Union could file such a petition on behalf of its members, as it falls within the scope of section 439 of the Companies Act, 1956. The matter was directed to be placed before the Company Judge for a decision on its merits in accordance with the law.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates