9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (3) TMI 567X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 2004 in Company Application No. 183 of 2000. 3. The grievance of the appellant is that though other similarly situated workers of the company-in-liquidation have been paid their salaries, the appellant has not been paid his salary for the very same period and has only received a sum of Rs. 50,000 which has been disbursed subsequent to the order of winding up qua the other workers. 4. The appellant resides at Chennai. He has been appearing as party-in-person on each date. Therefore, by order dated 10-10-2008, this court dispensed with the presence of the appellant by observing that if it is found necessary, notice shall be issued to him. 5. The brief facts, as culled out from the material on record, are that the appellant joined Calico ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n appointed as the Liquidator of the said company. 8. Earlier, the appellant had claimed an amount of Rs. 4,18,322 with interest. However, now the appellant has restricted his claim for salary for the periods 1-7-1990 to 31-10-1994, to an amount of Rs. 2,24,092 in view of the fact that the other workmen had been paid up to 31-10-1994. 9. The Official Liquidator has filed reports dated 17-11-2008, 4-12-2008 and 24-12-2008, contesting the claim of the appellant. Mr. J. S. Yadav, learned counsel for the Official Liquidator has submitted that the Official Liquidator is bound to observe priority as stipulated in section 530 of the Companies Act, 1956 ("the Companies Act") and, as per the provisions of sections 529 and 529A of the Companies Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the appeal be dismissed. 11. Mr. D. S. Vasavada, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 has reiterated the submissions made by learned counsel for the other respondents, to the effect that since the appellant has failed to execute the award and has lodged his claim after the winding up order is passed, the disbursement will be governed by sections 529 and 529A of the Companies Act, 1956. In support of the above proposition, the learned advocate has relied upon the following judgments : (1)J.K. (Bombay) (P.) Ltd. v. New Kaiser-I-Hind Spg. & Wvg. Co. Ltd. [1970] 40 Comp. Cas. 689. (2)ICICI Ltd. v. Textile Labour Association [O.J. Appeal Nos. 80 and 81 of 1998 oral order, dated 3-11-1998] (3)Union of India v. Kishor Lakha [2004] 2 LLJ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... side and after his computation petitions for the claim of salary had been allowed by the labour court and recovery proceedings in respect of the same, initiated. From the above factual scenario, it is evident that the claim of the appellant for salary is for the period before the winding up and, therefore, it stands on a totally different footing. The appellant would have been in service had his services not been illegally terminated. As the termination has been set aside, he ought to have been reinstated. The termination of the services of the appellant has been held to be illegal by a competent forum and there is nothing on record to show that this order has not attained finality. Had it not been for the order of termination, the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
