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

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...
Post a Comment
Read more

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...
Post a Comment
Read more

CBI has no jurisdiction to probe affairs of medical college:HC

The Madras High Court has quashed charges against administrators of a medical college and dismissed CBI's petitions opposing discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, saying the investigation agency, or any other external agency for that matter, has no jurisdiction to probe the affairs of a medical college. Quashing the charges against the administrators of a medical college and dismissing CBI's petitions opposing the discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, Justice Aruna Jagadeesan said "contravention of rules and regulations may be an offence against the statute but is not a crime. There is no room or jurisdiction for any external agency to investigate the affairs of any medical institution coming within the purview of the Medical Council of India." In identical set of orders, all delivered on August 6, Justice Jagadeesan said "the shortfall in faculties and submissions of fake/forged documents would only disentitle the institution...
Post a Comment
Read more