The NCLAT, New Delhi Bench opined that Appellant who never submitted any claim before the Resolution Professional claiming to be workmen could not 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.
Further, it was noted that Section 53 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “IBC”) itself provides different treatment in distribution of assets where workmen dues are dealt in Section 53(1)(b) and operational debt at much lower ladder.
The Bench held that when Resolution Plan differentiates between payment to the workmen as well as to the Operational Creditors, such distinction is in accordance with law and cannot be faulted.
Brief Facts:
The present appeal has been filed against the order of the NCLT vide which resolution plan submitted by one ‘Ramkrishna Forgings Limited’ was approved.
The case of the Appellants was that they are workers engaged by the sub-contractor and in the resolution plan, their claims were only accepted to the extent of 8% whereas workmen of the Corporate Debtor were proposed payment of 100%.
Contentions of the Appellants:
It was argued that there was 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.
Contentions of the Respondents:
It was contended that Appellant not being stakeholders had no right to challenge the resolution plan. It was further argued 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.
Observations of the Tribunal:
It was observed that the claim was filed by an Operational Creditor, a vendor. Hence, in the resolution plan, the claims were dealt as Operational Creditors.
It was opined that Appellant who never submitted any claim before the Resolution Professional claiming to be workmen could not 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.
Further, it was noted that Section 53 of the IBC itself provides different treatment in distribution of assets where workmen dues are dealt in Section 53(1)(b) and operational debt at much lower ladder.
The Bench held that when Resolution Plan differentiates between payment to the workmen as well as to the Operational Creditors, such distinction is in accordance with law and cannot be faulted.
The decision of the Tribunal:
Based on aforementioned reasons, the present appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Case Title: Amit Kumar Pandey & Ors. v. Pardeep Kumar Sethi, Resolution Professional
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1364 of 2023
Coram: Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Barun Mitra (Technical Member), Arun Baroka ( Technical Member)
Advocates for Appellant: Advs. Mr. Abhijit Sinha, Mr. Utkarsh Singh, Mr. Aditya Tripathi,
Advocates for Respondents: Advs. Mr. Krishnendu Datta, Mr. Prateen Kumar, Ms. Raveena Rai, Ms. Smriti Nair, Mr. Anuj Tiwari, Mr. Swankit Nanda, Ms. Aroshi Pal
Read More @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
