Skip to main content

IBC: Wages/salaries of workmen who actually worked during CIRP are included in CIRP cost

Citation : Sunil Kumar Jain and others Versus Sundaresh Bhatt and others, Civil Appeal No. 5910 Of 2019

Date of Judgment/Order : April 19, 2022

Court/Tribunal : The Supreme Court Of India

Corum : M.R. Shah; Aniruddha Bose; JJ.

Background

The Corporate Debtor was a private sector Ship Building Yard with its manufacturing activities at Dahej Yard and Surat Yard in Gujarat and having its corporate office at Mumbai. That prior to the initiation of CIRP, the Corporate Debtor had 562 workmen and 93 employees at Dahej; 291 workmen and 99 employees at Surat and 101 employees at its Mumbai Head Office. The appellants herein are the 272 employees and workmen employed at Mumbai Head Office and Dahej Yard of the Corporate Debtor. None of the 201 employees and workmen at Surat Yard are the appellants herein.

CIRP was initiated against the company and an application was filed before the Adjudicating Authority, praying inter alia to direct the Resolution Professional to make payment to the employees and the workmen. However, the Adjudicating Authority did not grant the relief claimed by the appellants – 272 workers/employees working at Dahej Yard and Mumbai Head Office for their claim relating to salary for the period involving CIRP and the prior period.

Since the Appellate Tribunal also refused to interfere with the order of the Adjudicating Authority, the Appellants came to the Supreme Court.

Judgment

The Supreme Court observed that on enactment of the IB Code, the winding up proceedings in case of insolvency are to be governed by the provisions of the IB Code and the provisions of the IB code only shall be applicable to deal with the winding up proceedings as the IB Code is a complete Code in itself. That thereafter, an amendment w.e.f. 15.11.2016 has been brought in under Section 327 (7) of 2013 Act wherein it has been clarified that the provisions of Section 326 and Section 327 of the 2013 Act will not be applicable in the event of liquidation under the IB Code.

It cannot be disputed that as per Section 5(13) of the IB Code, “insolvency resolution process costs” shall include any costs incurred by the resolution professional in running the business of the corporate debtor as a going concern. It is also true that Section 20 of the IB Code mandates that the interim resolution professional/resolution professional is to manage the operations of the corporate debtor as a going concern and in case during the CIRP the corporate debtor was a going concern, the wages/salaries of such workmen/employees who actually worked, shall be included in the CIRP costs and in case of liquidation of the corporate debtor, dues towards the wages and salaries of such workmen/employees who actually worked when the corporate debtor was a going concern during the CIRP, being a part of the CIRP costs are entitled to have the first priority and they have to be paid in full first as per Section 53(1)(a) of the IB Code. 

Therefore, while considering the claims of the concerned workmen/employees towards the wages/salaries payable during CIRP, first of all it has to be established and proved that during CIRP :-

1) The corporate debtor was a going concern
2) The concerned workmen/employees actually worked while the corporate debtor was a going concern during the CIRP. 

If it is found that in fact the IRP/RP managed the operations of the corporate debtor as a going concern during the CIRP and the concerned workmen/employees actually worked during CIRP, their wages and salaries be considered and included in CIRP costs and they will have to be paid as per Section 53(1)(a) of the IB Code in full before distributing the amount in the priorities as mentioned in Section 53 of the IB Code.

The wages and salaries of all other workmen / employees of the Corporate Debtor during the CIRP who actually have not worked and/or performed their duties when the Corporate Debtor was a going concern, shall not be included automatically in the CIRP costs. Such dues will be governed by Section 53(1)(b) and Section 53(1) (c) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal directing the Liquidator to verify the facts and act accordingly.

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

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.
2 comments
Read more

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...
2 comments
Read more