Incab Employess Association Pune vs Mr. Pankaj Kumar Tibrewal Resolution ...

INCAB Employees Association, Pune ...Appellant

Versus

Pankaj Kumar Tibrewal, RP of INCAB Industries Ltd. ...Respondent Present: For Appellant : Mr. Avishek Das, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Shalya Agarwal, Mr. Sandeep Vig, Advocates Mr. Abhishek Anand, Mr. Karan Kohli, Ms. Palak Kalra, Mr. Rajat Gupta, Advocates for SRA

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode) 09.09.2025: I.A. No. 4053 of 2025

This is an application praying for Impleadment of 73 applicants to join

as appellants. It is submitted by learned counsel for the SRA that this

appeal has been filed through Authorised Representative, who had filed the

claim in the CIRP. Hence, it is not necessary to implead the applicants. This

Tribunal while hearing the appeal passed the following order on

04/04/2025:

"Counsel for the Appellant seeks liberty to file an application for bringing the workers themselves who had filed the claims before the Resolution Professional as Appellants. Liberty is granted to file an application within three weeks.

2. List the Appeal on 05.05.2025."

In accordance with the liberty granted by this Tribunal this

application has been filed. Applicants' case is that they have filed their claim

in the CIRP and they want to prosecute the appeal in reference to the claim

1|5 filed in the CIRP. We are of the view that applicants need to be added as

appellants to the appeal and permitted to prosecute the appeal.

Let amended memo be filed implementing all the applicants of the

application.

Application as prayed is allowed.

I.A. No. 4037 of 2025

This is an application praying for condonation of 60 days in refiling

the application. We have already passed order in the application No. 4053 of

2025 by which 73 workers have been impleaded as appellants, we find

sufficient cause in the application, praying for condonation of delay in

refiling especially paragraph 4 of the application.

Delay condone.

Heard counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the RP as well as

learned counsel for the SRA. This appeal has been filed challenging the order

dated 08.01.2025 in I.A No. 347/KB/2022 I.A. was filled where following

prayers were made:-

"The instant application has been preferred under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, for brevity "I&B Code" by Incab Employees Association, Pune, hereinafter referred to as "Applicant" against Mr. Pankaj Kumar Tibrewal, the Resolution Professional of Incab Industries Limited (Corporate Debtor), hereinafter referred to as "Respondent"/ "RP"

seeking the following reliefs:

a. That this Adjudicating Authority be pleased to direct the Respondent to admit the entire claim of the members of the Applicant (as per Exhibit 1 hereto) due and payable by the Corporate Debtor to the members of the Applicant. b. That p ending the hearing and final disposal of this Application, the Adjudicating Authority be pleased to stay the

2|5 consideration, voting and approval on any resolution plan by the Committee of Creditors of the Corporate Debtor. c. Ad interim reliefs in terms of prayer clause (b) above. d. For costs e. For such other and further reliefs as the Adjudicating Authority deems fit and proper in the facts of the present case."

Adjudicating Authority has considered the application and held that

the RP has provisionally admitted the claim and he did not have the

complete data with regard to amount payable to the employees', with the

above observation the Adjudicating Authority rejected the application.

Appellants who had filed the claim aggrieved by the order has come up

in the appeal. Learned Counsel for the appellant has referred to annexure A-

4 to the communication by the RP where details of claims submitted

gratuity, total claim and finally admitted claim have been tabulated at page

639 of I.A No. 4053 of 2025, which contains all details of the claim with

regard to the employees' item 1 to 69 are reflected and the finally admitted

claim is also reflected in column D with regard to item 70 to 73 in finally

admitted "claim missing" is mentioned. Whereas in column of A, B and C,

the submitted claim gratuity and total claim has been already reflected. He

has given example of Arun Anand Arthalkar, who has submitted claim of

13,97,492/- gratuity 4,04,085/-, total claim 18,01,577/- and finally

admitted claim is 17,04,538 submissions is that the amount which was

claimed as 18,01,577 admissions is only of 17,04,538 and there is no

clarification as to amount reduced is out of gratuity or the salary

component. He submits that with regard to item Nos. 70 to 73 where claim

is said to be missing when the figures are already captured in the table,

there was no occasion in admitting the said claim.

3|5 The learned counsel for the RP submitted that the claim admission

was on the basis of material which were before the RP.

Learned counsel for the SRA submits that the SRA has already filed

the affidavit that he shall pay the gratuity and PF of the claims admitted in

full. Counsel for the SRA has categorically stated that entire gratuity shall be

paid. It is clear that the amount which is admitted towards the gratuity has

to be treated as the amount full admitted of the gratuity and we are of the

view that this clarification is necessary to protect the amount of gratuity

which SRA has already undertaken to pay in full.

In so far as item 70 to 73 which is as follows:-

Sr. Name Submitte Gratuit Total Finally Diff No d claim y Claim admitted (D-

. C) 70 Tanaji Sopan Satav 564732 259012 823744 Claim Missing 71 Pratap Dagdoba Salekar 924444 373729 1298173 Claim Missing 72 Gajanan Maruti Mathe 286503 223396 509899 Claim Missing 73 Cecilia Maduram W/o Late 63702 0 63702 Claim Irudiaraj Maduram Missing Yeshudas

When the submitted claim and gratuity amount is already there, we

are failed to see whey in the finally admitted claim word used are "claim

missing" when the figures are already there the said total claim was entitled

to be admitted and we treat the claim of item nos.70 to 73 as claim as

reflected above to be treated to be admitted and needs to be dealt

accordingly. Gratuity with reference to item nos. 70 to 73 also is to be paid

in full as submitted by counsel for SRA.

4|5 In view of the aforesaid, we see no reason to keep appeal pending with

the clarification and modification as above the appeal is disposed of.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

tu/nn

5|5