9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 101X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r ( Judicial ) : Company Appeal ( AT ) ( CH ) ( INS ) Nos. 230 & 231 / 2024 : 1. As these two Company Appeals are based on almost the same questions of facts and Law, for the purposes of brevity, they are being decided together. 2. The Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 230 / 2024, where the Appellant challenges the impugned judgment dated 09.05.2024, it pertains to invoking of an Appellate Jurisdiction, under Section 42 of the I & B Code, 2016, praying for a direction to the Respondents to pay the wages due as per the orders passed by the learned Labour Court in ID No. 51 / 2014. 3. Whereas in Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 231 / 2024, the Appellant has put a challenge to the impugned judgment, whereby the Appeal preferred before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which stood allowed, with a direction to pay an amount of Rs.47,47,021/-, along with interest payable on it at the rate of 9%, for the period running from 01.12.2012 to 31.03.2022. 8. During the intervening period, when the Appellant was contesting the proceedings, before the learned Labour Court, as against his order of dismissal, his employer was brought under Liquidation by the NCLT, Chennai Bench, by way of an order dated 17.02.2022, and as a consequence thereto, when by way of notice of 22.02.2022, when the claims were invited, the Appellant submitted his claim by way of Form II, on 09.03.2022. 9. The claim, thus raised by the Appellant was considered by the Liquidator and the same was d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reliefs sought for, for payment of wages and on the basis of other orders passed by the Labour Court in ID No. 51 / 2014 as decided on 25.10.2018 in CP No. 13 / 2022 dated 20.06.2022. 15. The learned Adjudicating Authority considered the aspect of the claims as raised by the Appellant in the appeal under Section 42, rejection of the claims of the Appellant by the Liquidator apart from the claim admitted to the tune of Rs.32,62,132/- and finally rejected the same on the ground that the Appeal preferred by the Appellant under Section 42 of the I & B Code, 2016, was barred by Limitation, since having been preferred belatedly, after the lapse of about 466 days in filing the Appeal. 16. It is seen that the reason which has been taken by the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he expenditures of preferring the Appeal, before NCLT, Chennai. 20. Hence, the financial crunch which is the ground taken in the Condone Delay Application, cannot to be taken as to be a satisfactory ground for overcoming the embargo of limitation of 14 days, as prescribed under Section 42 of the I & B Code, 2016, and for the purposes of seeking condonation of an inordinate delay of 466 days, which is too in-ordinant and unexplained. 21. On account of the reasons which have been assigned by the learned Adjudicating Authority for not accepting the plea taken by the Appellant for seeking condonation of delay, being exclusively based upon the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court coupled with the facts also, as it engages consideration in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
