9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 1399X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ( Hybrid Mode ) I.A. No.8501 of 2024: This is an application praying for condonation of 102 days' delay in refiling the appeal. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that this appeal has been filed by the Workers' Union and grounds have been taken in Paras 5 to 7 explaining the cause for delay in refiling. It is submitted that 19 defects were communicated and there were voluminous documents which took some time in obtaining the documents and including authorisation. We find sufficient cause for condonation of refiling delay. Refiling delay is condoned. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant and Shri Abhishek Anand, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent. This Appeal has been filed against order passed by the Adjudicating A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le computing the salary of the workmen and the workmen were entitled to the salary till insolvency commencement date. 5. Shri Abhishek Anand, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent submits that the CIRP commenced on 12.05.2022 and it was open for the Appellant to challenge the layoff. Layoff having not been challenged by the Appellant, the Resolution Professional had to collate the claim and calculate the salary payment till date of layoff. 6. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. In Paras 7 and 8 of the order, the Adjudicating Authority has made following observations: "7. From the record, we notice that the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor commenced on 12.05.2022. The layof ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claim and not for determining the quantum of dues/claim. 8. Further, the RP is empowered to represent the Corporate Debtor before a Judicial Forum. Since the issue whether Applicant is entitled to salary for the lay off period is arising prior to the initiation of CIRP, the same is not arising out of the insolvency proceedings and is therefore, dehors to the jurisdiction of this Adjudicating Authority under Section 60(5) of IBC 2016." 8. Learned counsel for the Respondent submits that the issued raised in the present appeal is fully covered by judgment of this Tribunal in "Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.1572 of 2024, Era Labourer Union of Sidcul, Pant Nagar, through its Secretary Vs. Apex Buildsys Ltd.". In the said judgment also both lay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thus, do not find any merit in the Appeal. The Appeal is dismissed." 9. In the present case, the Resolution Professional has calculated the salary till the layoff period and accordingly, admitted the claim to the tune of Rs.185,62,360/-, which has been reaffirmed by the Resolution Professional. We are of the view that non-computation of salary after lay off by the Resolution Professional cannot be faulted with since the Resolution Professional has no adjudicatory jurisdiction and the Adjudicating Authority has rightly observed that whether the Workers are entitled to claim their dues for the layoff period under provisions of Industrial Dispute Act is not in the domain of the Adjudicating Authority. The said view is clearly in accordance o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
