9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 1055X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ms. Section 36(2) of the I B Code 2016 provides that the Liquidator shall hold the Liquidation Estate in fiduciary for the benefit of all the Creditors. The Liquidator has no domain to deal with any property of the Corporate Debtor, which is not the part of the Liquidation Estate. The claim of wages cannot be sanctioned unless the statutorily constituted forums either under the Industrial Dispute Act, Payment of Wages Act and Bonus Act have rendered its decision. However, no such decision or award is available in favour of the workmen entitling them to claim these amounts - Appeal dismissed. - CA(IBC)/01/KOB/2021, CA(IBC)/03/KOB/2021, CA(IBC)/04/KOB/2021, CA(IBC)/05/KOB/2021, CA(IBC)/06/KOB/2021 in IBA/258/2019(Chennai Bench) - - - Dated:- 18-11-2021 - Hon ble Mr. Rajesh Sharma Member (Technical) And Hon ble Mr. Ashok Kumar Borah Member (Judicial) Joseph K.J., Antony N.V., James P.V., George Joseph, C.U. Thomas Versus Shri. Ravindra Chaturvedi Liquidator of Excel Glasses Limited For the Appellants : Shri Gokul Das (Advocate) For the Respondent : Shri. Joseph Kodianthara, (Senior Advocate) ORDER 1. These appeals have been filed by the Petitioners/Appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... im amounts which included gratuity etc. were never paid to them till 21.10.2019, the date on which order directing liquidation of the subject Company was passed by this Tribunal. Therefore, the Appeals were filed by the Appellants. Brief description of claim of the appellants: CA(IBC)/01/KOB/2021 The appellant Joseph K. J. stated that he was a Workman of the Corporate Debtor from 23.02.1976 for about four decades. On seeing the Public Announcement, he had submitted his claim in Form E on 18.11.2019 to the respondent claiming amounts on various counts such as salary arrears, bonus, lay off compensation, closure/ retrenchment compensation, and notice pay and gratuity. Thereafter, nothing was heard from the Respondent. His total claim amount is ₹ 2,91,060/- [₹ 1,61,700/- (Gratuity Payable) + ₹ 1,29,360/-(interest @10% per annum till liquidation order)]. However, as per the modified list of Details of Claims of Workmen/ Employees uploaded on the website of the subject company, the appellant came to know that an amount of ₹ 1,34,611/- has only been admitted by the respondent. CA(IBC)/03/KOB/2021 The appellant Antony N.V. stated tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d a revised claim. Thereafter, nothing was heard from the Respondent. His total claim amount is ₹ 5,48,671/-[₹ 3,51,712/-(Gratuity Payable)+ ₹ 1,96,959/- (interest @ 8% per annum till liquidation order). However, as per the modified list of Details of Claims of Workmen/ Employees uploaded on the website of the subject company, the appellants came to know that an amount of ₹ 2,47,053/- has only been admitted by the respondent. CA(IBC)/06/KOB/2021 The appellant C.U. Thomas stated that he was a Workman in the Sand Dry Section of the Corporate Debtor from 01.11.1996 for about 16 decades. On seeing the Public Announcement, he had submitted his claim in Form E on 18.11.2019 to the respondent claiming amount on various counts such as salary arrears, bonus, lay off compensation, closure/ retrenchment compensation, and notice pay and gratuity. Upon receipt of the appellant s aforesaid claim, the respondent sought for production of certain documents and detail, in terms of Section 39 (2) of Code from the Appellant. Subsequently the Appellant submitted a revised claim and additional supporting documents. Thereafter, nothing was heard from the side of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Liquidator on his own cannot decide on disputed liability of them. He can only act on the strength of crystalized claims. 7. We have also gone through the Settlement Agreement dated 02.12.2015 which was arrived at between the Management of Excel Glasses and the Trade Unions, in which it was stated that the lock-out was valid and legally done by the company. 8. This Tribunal suggested modification in the list of stakeholders vide order dated 10.08.2020 in IA 78/KOB/2020 filed under Section 35(1)(n) of the Code and that the Respondent had duly complied with that order. It is the settled position of law that the provident fund, the pension fund and the gratuity fund, do not come within the purview of liquidation estate for the purpose of distribution of assets under Section 53 of the Code. Based on this, the only inference which can be drawn is that Pension Fund, Gratuity Fund and Provident Fund can t be utilised, attached or distributed by the liquidator, to satisfy the claims. Section 36(2) of the I B Code 2016 provides that the Liquidator shall hold the Liquidation Estate in fiduciary for the benefit of all the Creditors. The Liquidator has no domain to deal with any prope ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
