AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
(Hybrid Mode)
Heard counsel for the appellant as well as Ld. Counsel for the respondent.
This appeal has been filed against the order dated 28.11.2025 passed by National Company Law Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench-1 in IA No. 855 of 2025. The application was filed by the appellant praying for various reliefs as noticed by the Adjudicating Authority. Application by 6 employees as has been noted in paragraph-1 with the respective claim. The Adjudicating Authority by the impugned order has considered the issues raised in the application with regard to first issue Adjudicating Authority observed that there are only 6 employees they can maintain the application, for themselves only and as far as they were not informed RP has already sent communication with respect to the details of the admission of claim of the employees the facts have been noticed in paragraph-4. Adjudicating Authority has further observed that the Adjudicating Authority will consider the plan as per law when it comes for adjudication.
Ld. Counsel for the respondent submitted that in fact the applicants have already filed and IA No. 1601/CH/2025 in IA No. 885/2025 which was disposed of by NCLT on 30.10.2025 observing that issues of Provident Fund, Gratuity, Salary and Payment of workmen will be considered by the Adjudicating Authority at the time of approval of the plan. Counsel for the appellant challenging the order contends that the total claim filed by the employees were Rs.108,982,589/- whereas RP has admitted only Rs. 60,776,629/-. It is further submitted that with regard to gratuity there are no observations in the order. He submits that in the books of accounts the clam reflected were about Rs.9 crores. He submits that Adjudicating Authority had made error in in rejecting the application.
Counsel for the respondent submitted that claim of employees were admitted and as per admitted amount of the claim no issues were raised by any employee including the applicant and admission of claim has become final. It is submitted that in so far as Gratuity, Provident Fund Adjudicating Authority has already made observation in the order dated 30.10.2025 that same shall be considered at the time of adjudication of the resolution plan.
After having heard counsel for the parties we are of the view that in so far as submission of the appellant challenging the admission of the amount of claim of the employees, the said cannot be made an issue at the time of consideration of plan approval. After the admission of the claim by the Resolution Professional no issues were raised or any application was filed by before the Adjudicating Authority. We have looked into the order dated 30.10.2025 passed by the Adjudicating Authority on the application filed by the applicant themselves where Adjudicating Authority has made following observations:-
“ORDER IA(IBC)/1601(CH)2025
The present application has been filed in IA No.885/2025, which is already reserved for orders by this Bench. We have heard Mr. Ashwani Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant, Mr. Sandeep Bajaj, Ld. Counsel for the RP and Mr. Sugam Seth, Ld. Counsel for the CoC. It is pointed out by Mr. Sugam Seth that the applicants herein in the application are Employees of M/s Winsome Yarns Ltd. However, in IA No.855/2025, authorization of only six employees were filed. It is further pointed out that the application cannot be treated to have been filed on behalf of the association of employees. Then we note that through this application, the applicants are making a prayer as regards to the sums due to employees from Provident Fund, Pension Fund, Gratuity and Salary etc. It is also noted that in IA No.855/2025, these applicants had sought directions as regards to their dues of Provident Fund, Pension Fund, Gratuity and Salary etc. The said application has already been heard and reserved for orders. Now through this application, the directions are being sought to the respondents for certain clarifications. We are not convinced with such an application which is filed in the matter of IA No.855/2025, which has already been heard and reserved for orders. Nevertheless, it goes without saying that the issue of Provident Fund, Gratuity and salary arrears payment to the employees and workmen will have to be considered by the Adjudicating Authority while considering the application for approval of the Resolution Plan. At any stage, if need arises, then this Adjudicating Authority can ask for certain information from the applicants, otherwise they have no right to intervene in the matter of the approval of the Resolution Plan. In that case, RP has to explain as to how the compliances required under Section 30(2)(b) are made. The Adjudicating Authority has to look into that aspect only and in the process issues as regards Provident Fund, Pension Fund, Gratuity etc. in terms of the judgments given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court would be looked into. Therefore, we are of the view that the present application is not maintainable at all after having reserved IA No.855/2025. Accordingly, IA No.1601/2025 stands dismissed and disposed of. ”
It has been further informed that plan approval application has already been approved on 09.03.2026, Adjudicating Authority has yet to consider the plan approval application which obviously has to be considered in accordance with the compliances of provision of Section 30(2) and the Statutory Regulations. We have no doubt that Adjudicating Authority having already observed on 30.10.2025 the interest of the appellants are protected by the said order.
With these observations, we disposed of the appeal.