Skip to main content

NCLAT: Workmen Dues Of Pension, Gratuity, PF Not Included In Liquidation Assets

In Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 396 of 2019, State Bank of India Vs Moser Baer Karamchari Union & Anr., appeal was filed against the order of the NCLT wherein it was decided that the ‘Provident Fund Dues’, ‘Pension Fund Dues’ and ‘Gratuity Fund Dues’ cannot be part of the Liquidation Assets as per Section 53 of the ‘I&B Code’.

'Liquidation estate' comprises of the assets over which the Corporate Debtor has ownership rights. The Liquidator of Moser Baer took a stand that according to the explanation of section 53 of IBC, "workmen's dues" shall have the same meaning as that assigned to it under section 326 of the Companies Act, 2013 and hence, gratuity is included in the "liquidation estate assets", thus making it as an asset of the Corporate Debtor.

The NCLT Bench was of the view that the term 'liquidation estate' has been defined under section 36 of the IBC and specifically excludes these dues from the purview of recovery made under liquidation.
While referring to a judgment passed by NCLT Mumbai, the Delhi bench held that even though gratuity, pension and provident fund dues are dues payable by the Corporate Debtor, but they are essentially assets of the workmen lying with the Corporate Debtor's company and thus, the provisions of IBC cannot be made applicable to them. The NCLT also clarified that in the event of any deficiency to the funds, the liquidator has to ensure that the amounts are available, even if the Corporate Debtor has not diverted the requisite amount.

The NCLAT observed that the main bone of contention was the difference between and subsequent reliance on the term 'workman's dues' as per Section 53 of the IB Code and Section 326 of the Companies Act 2013. The NCLAT held that the ‘workmen’s dues’ is mentioned in clause (b) (i) of Section 53(1), which are the dues for the period of twenty-four months preceding the liquidation commencement date and the Appellant cannot derive the meaning as assigned to it in Section 326 of the Companies Act, 2013.

The NCLAT decided that there is a difference between the distribution of assets and preference/ priority of workmen’s dues as mentioned under Section 53(1) (b) of the ‘I&B Code’ and Section 326(1) (a) of the Companies Act, 2013. It has also been noticed that Section 53(1) (b) (i) which relates to distribution of assets, workmen’s dues is confined to a period of twenty- four months preceding the liquidation commencement date. While applying Section 53 of the ‘I&B Code’, Section 326 of the Companies Act, 2013 is relevant for the limited purpose of understanding ‘workmen’s dues” which can be more than provident fund, pension fund and the gratuity fund kept aside and protected under Section 36(4) (iii). On the other hand, the workmen’s dues as mentioned in Section 326(1) (a) is not confined to a period like twenty-four months preceding the liquidation commencement date and, therefore, the Appellant for the purpose of determining the workmen’s dues as mentioned in Section 53(1) (b), cannot derive any advantage of Explanation (iv) of Section 326 of the Companies Act, 2013.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Flat owner without legal title has consumer rights

In a significant judgment, the South Mumbai Consumer Forum has held that a flat owner legally occupying the flat would be a consumer, even if his title to the flat might be in dispute before a competent court. Thurlow owned a flat in a co-operative society. Appuswami was residing with him. In 1976, Appuswami got married in the same flat, and his wife started residing in the same flat. They had three children, born and brought up in the same flat. After Thurlow expired in 2004, Appuswami approached the High Court for inheritance to Thurlow's estate but expired while the matter was pending. His wife and children were brought on record. Subsequently, the society intervened, contending Appuswami did not have any right to the flat and it should be handed over to the Society. The Appuswami family continued to reside in the flat, and even pay the society's outgoings and maintenance charges. Later, the society stopped collecting maintenance charges from all members, as it earned...
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subs...
Post a Comment
Read more