Miss Lucy
← All judgments

A.P.Rayons Karmik Sangh vs Finquest Financial Solution Pvt Ltd

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal6 November 2024Ashok Bhushan

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

A clerical or inadvertent error in an order, which merely misstates the intended terms of a settlement recorded before the tribunal, may be corrected on application, and a party that did not object when the order was passed and never appealed the underlying order is not permitted to raise objections to that correction.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNALPRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHII.A. No. 3996 of 2024 inComp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 696 of 2023

IN THE MATTER OF: A. P Rayons Karmik Sangh & Ors. ...Appellants Versus Finquest Financial Solutions Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : For Respondents : Mr. Sunil Fernandes Sr. Advocate with Mr. Kaustubh Prakash, Ms. Hita Sharma, Ms. Diksha Dadu and Ms. Rajshree for R1. Ms. Vinamra Kopariha, Advocate for R2. Mr. Kaushal Gautam and Ms. Mrinal Sharma, Advocates for R3.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

06.11.2024: I.A. No. 3996 of 2024

This is an application praying for modification/ correction in the

judgment dated 08.11.2023 by deletion of the term "and PF" from para-1 & 2 of

the judgment.

2. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the appeal was filed by the

Workers Union challenging the order dated 31.03.2023 by which the

Adjudicating Authority has approved the resolution plan which was submitted

by Finquest Financial Solutions Private Limited. In the appeal the Employees

Provident Fund Commissioner was also impleaded as Respondent No.3. It is

submitted that during pendency of the appeal settlement was entered between the workers and the SRA that as per the calculation of the worker total amount

of gratuity payable was Rs.13,20,87,592/- keeping 31.12.2015 as last working

day and under the plan amount of Rs.5,26,62,931/- has been paid and the

SRA agreed to pay the balance amount of Rs.7,94,24,661/- accepting the

settlement the appeal was disposed of by the order dated 08.11.2023 but in the

para-1 and 2 in addition to gratuity the word "and PF" dues has also been used

which was inadvertently used since there was no settlement with regard to PF

dues. A copy of settlement has been brought on the record as Annexure R-2.

The terms of settlement in paragraph-2 & 9 which are relevant are as follows:-

"2. However, the ex-workmen and ex-employees of Kamalapuram associated with the Unions have calculated their gratuity due by keeping 31.12.2015 as last working day and have arrived at a total sum of INR 13,20,87,592/- (Rupees Thirteen Crore Twenty Lakh Eighty Seven Thousand Five Hundred Ninety Two), out of which, though about 5,26,62,931 (Rupees Five Crore Twenty Six Lakhs Sixty Two Thousand Nine Hundred Thirty One) have already been paid by the RP, the same has been paid fully and the balance amount payable has now arrived at INR 7,94,24,661 (Rupees Seven Crore Ninety Four Lakh Twenty Four Thousand Six Hundred Sixty One).

9. It is agreed that upon receipt of their full and final settlement as per the present MOS, all the Unions, ex-workmen and ex-employees to unconditionally and irrevocably withdraw all the existing/pending cases, which were filed before NCLAT, New Delhi and Asst. Commissioner of Labour, Mahaboobabad or any other Judicial or QuasiJudicial Forum or Tribunal. The Unions have also assured that no new litigation shall be directly or indirectly initiated pertaining to any alleged pending dues of the concerned ex-workmen and ex- employees."

Accepting the settlement appeal was disposed of.

I.A. No. 3996 of 2024 in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 696 of 2023 2 of 3

3. In the application Ld. Counsel appearing for the EPFO has raised

objection with regard to this application no. 3996 of 2024. When the appeal

was heard and disposed of on 08.11.2023 neither there was any opposition on

behalf of the EPFO nor any objections were filed. It is also relevant to notice

that EPFO never filed any appeal challenging the order dated 31.03.2023. In

the application which only prays for correction of an inadvertent error in the

order by using the word "and PF".

4. We are of the view that no objections can be allowed to be raised by

EPFO in the present application. We are thus satisfied that correction in the

order dated 08.11.2023 needs to be made therefore the word "and PF"

occurring in last line of first paragraph and first line of second paragraph is

deleted and corrected order may also be uploaded.

Application is disposed of accordingly.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) harleen/NN

I.A. No. 3996 of 2024 in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 696 of 2023 3 of 3

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free