Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + Tri Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2021 (10) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (10) TMI 711 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyAdmission of various claims - appointment under the category of Contract of Service or Contract for Service - Section 42 of Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - HELD THAT:- The appellants filed their claim in Form E even though the Liquidator directed them to file the claim in Form C, stating that they are not Operational Creditors. In this respect the Tribunal consider it necessary to see whether the appellants being consultant doctors of the corporate debtor comes under the purview of workmen? In order to verify whether the appellants are paid salary and whether the T.D.S was made, vide order dated 02.08.2021 the appellants were directed to produce the acknowledgement of IT returns showing the income and the tax paid by them during their engagement with the Corporate Debtor. However, the appellants have not produced the same. The learned counsel appearing for appellants could not properly answer why these documents could not be produced. In the cases on hand, the Appellants could not prove that they are full-time employees of the Corporate Debtor and their names entered in the muster rolls of the Corporate Debtor as “Employee”. A perusal of the appointment letters annexed with the appeals, it is discernible that the Appellants are appointed as Consultant Doctors for a fixed remuneration and they are acting as Consultants of the Corporate Debtor. In the appointment letter it is agreed between the parties that the tax shall be deducted from the payment of the doctors. It is also seen that the appellants were not registered as a part of corporate debtor’s Employee Provident Fund Scheme and no agreement to show that provident fund can be deducted from their professional fees - they cannot be considered as workmen/ employees of the Corporate Debtor, as rightly decided by the Liquidator. There are no error in the impugned order passed by the Liquidator - appeal dismissed.
|