Yogesh Kumar & Ors vs Shantanu T. Ray, Resolution ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 403 of 2018
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a dispute arises as to whether the appellants are present or former employees of a corporate debtor under insolvency, the question whether they are existing employees is not one that the Adjudicating Authority or the Appellate Tribunal can decide; it is for the Resolution Professional to determine, on the basis of the corporate debtor's records such as payroll and attendance sheets, which employees are to be retained so that the corporate debtor continues as a going concern.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Yogesh Kumar & Ors. ...Appellants
Vs.
Shantanu T. Ray, Resolution Professional of M/s. AML Steel and Power Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellants: - Mr. Aditya Narayan, Advocate.
ORDER
30.07.2018─ Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants
submits that the Appellants are employees and they have been wrongly
ousted by the 'Resolution Professional'. It is also submitted that the
'Resolution Professional' is treating them as the ex-employees whereas
the Appellants are the employees on roll and are co-operating with the
'Resolution Professional'
However, as we find that there is a dispute as to whether the
Appellants are the present or ex-employees, we are of the view that such
issue cannot be decided by the Adjudicating Authority or by this
Appellate Tribunal.
The Appellants may approach the 'Resolution Professional' and
bring to his notice any evidence to show that they are existing employee.
Contd/-................
-2-
In such case, taking into consideration the pay roll and attendance sheet,
whatever record is available in the office of the 'Corporate Debtor', the
'Resolution Professional' may decide as to who is the existing employee
from whom work should be taken for ensuring that 'Corporate Debtor'
continues as on-going concern.
The appeal is disposed of with the foresaid observation. No cost.
(Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya) Chairperson
(Justice Bansi Lal Bhat) Member(Judicial) Ar/uk
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 403 of 2018
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