Amit Kumar Pandey & Ors. ….Appellants Vs. Pardeep Kumar Sethi, Resolution Professional
CA (AT) (Ins) 1364 of 2023
Facts:
1. Appeal has been filed against the order dated 21.08.2023 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi Bench (Court-II) allowing IA. No.1067/ND/2023 filed by the Resolution Professional under Section 30(6) of the IBC praying for approval of the Resolution Plan dated 11.11.2022 submitted by ‘Ramkrishna Forgings Limited’.
Issue: Whether the appeal can be admitted?
Arguments:
Appellant:
1.Counsel for the Appellants submits that the Appellants who were workers employed through sub-contractor have been working in the units of the Corporate Debtor and they were entitled for payment of their full wages including provident fund and gratuity etc. whereas the Resolution Plan only proposes 8% of such dues whereas claims of the workmen have been accepted 100% of their claims.
2.It was further submitted that there is no difference between workmen who are employed directly by the Corporate and workers who are engaged through sub-contractor, both having been performing same duties are entitled for same emoluments. If Section 3(36) of the IBC read with Section 2(s) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, the regulation does not make any difference between workers and sub-contracted workers. Appellants are also stakeholders and a harmonious interpretation of the statute needs to be given to extend benefit to the sub-contracted workers also
Respondent:
1.Counsel submitted that Appellants have no right to challenge the approval of the Resolution Plan. Appellants were not even stakeholders in the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor. The claims of workmen of the Corporate Debtor were filed and admitted by Resolution Professional whereas claims were filed by the sub-contractor themselves as operational debt.
2.It was submitted that The claims filed by the sub-contractor cannot be treated to be claim filed by the workmen and dealt in the category of workmen’s claims. Under Section 53 of the IBC, claim of workmen is on higher pedestal as compared to the claim of the operational creditor. No error has been committed by the Adjudicating Authority in approving the Resolution Plan submitted by Resolution Applicant on the basis of collated and admitted claims of Operational Creditor.
Decision:
Rationale:
1.It held that Appellant who never submitted any claim before the Resolution Professional claiming to be workmen cannot be allowed to contend at this stage that they are workmen and they should be paid at par with the workmen of the Corporate Debtor for amount which was admitted in the CIRP by the Resolution Professional.
2.It noted that There can be no dispute with the submission with regard to statutory definition of workmen as given in Industrial Dispute Act and adopted by Section 3(36) of the IBC but the question is as to whether when the claim has not been filed in the CIRP as workmen by the Appellant and the claim which can be referable by them is the claim filed by sub-contractor as operational debt, can it be treated at par with the workmen dues.
3.It held that The claim at best on behalf of the Appellants through sub-contractor was a claim of operational debt filed by operational creditor i.e. vendors,. The claim filed by the Operational Creditor in Form B has been dealt with in accordance with the IBC and CIRP Regulation and the claim which was filed by the Operational Creditor cannot be transposed to be claim of workmen for the purpose of this Appeal.
Order Copy:
