Sunil Kumar Jain & Ors vs Sundaresh Bhatt & Ors

Sunil Kumar Jain & Ors. .... Appellants

Vs

Mr. Sundaresh Bhatt & Ors. .... Respondents

Present: For Appellants: Mr. Shikhil Suri, Mr. Shiv Kumar Suri and Ms. Shilpa Saini, Advocates.

For Respondents: Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Mr. Asmly Cherian and Mr. Sanket Tiwari, Advocate.

Mr. Bishwajit Dube and Ms. Surabhi Khattar, Advocates for Respondent Nos.

ORDER

31.05.2019 This Appeal has been preferred by the Appellant-workmen

against part of the order dated 25th April, 2019 passed by the Adjudicating

Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Ahmedabad Bench,

Ahemdabad, whereby, no relief has been granted to the Appellants with

regard to their claim relating to salary, which they claimed for the period

involving 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process' and the prior period.

2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants submitted that

the Adjudicating Authority has failed to decide the claim of the Appellants-

workmen, who actually performed the duties during the 'Corporate

Insolvency Resolution Process', but have not been paid the salary. This

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 605 of 2019 Page 1 of 3 apart, the salary of the earlier period has also not been released in their

favour, though other similarly situated persons/ workmen have been paid.

3. It is submitted that by order dated 25th April, 2019 the Adjudicating

Authority earlier disposed of an Interlocutory Application directing the

'Resolution Professional' to deposit Rs.2.75 crores out of approximately

Rs.9.55 crores with the Registrar of the NCLT by way of fixed deposit. It is

submitted that the salary for the period during which the 272 workmen and

employees had worked, should have been cleared out of the said amount.

4. On hearing Counsel for the Appellants and the Counsel for the

Liquidator, we find that an order of liquidation has already been passed. This

apart, the disputed question of fact, as to whether the Appellants have

actually worked during the 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process' or the

earlier period, cannot be dealt with by the Adjudicating Authority till such

information could have been obtained from the 'Resolution Professional' or

claim is decided by the Liquidator.

5. In view of the aforesaid fact, we are not inclined to interfere with the

impugned order dated 25th April, 2019, but allow the Appellants-all 272

workmen and employees to file individual claims before the Liquidator, who

after going through the record and taking into consideration the pleadings

made by workmen/ employees will determine the claim. If claim of one or

other workmen/ employee is rejected, it will be open to them to move before

the Adjudicating Authority, who may decide the same in accordance with

law.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 605 of 2019 Page 2 of 3

6. So far as, the Gratuity and Provident Funds are concerned, it is

sufficient to say that the same cannot be treated to be the asset of the

'Corporate Debtor'. They are to be disbursed among the employees/

workmen who are entitled for the same. The Appeal stands disposed of with

aforesaid observation. No cost.

[Justice S. J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson

[Justice A.I.S. Cheema] Member (Judicial)

[Kanthi Narahari] Member (Technical)

Ash/SK

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 605 of 2019 Page 3 of 3