Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + AT Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2019 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 915 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHIInitiation of CIRP - Liquidation process - preference of workmen for payment of dues - first charge or not - denial of payment of the gratuity fund, the provident fund and the pension fund preferentially and included the same for the payments under the waterfall mechanism - whether the provident fund, pension fund and gratuity fund come within the meaning of assets of the ‘Corporate Debtor’ for distribution under Section 53 of the I&B Code? HELD THAT:- From sub-section (4) (a) (iii) of Section 36, it is clear that all sums due to any workman or employee from the provident fund, the pension fund and the gratuity fund, shall not be included in the liquidation estate assets and cannot be used for recovery in the liquidation - From sub-section (1) of Section 53, it is clear that the proceeds from the sale of the liquidation assets of the ‘Corporate Debtor’, the distribution is to be made in order of priority and within such period and in such manner as provided thereunder. In terms of sub-section (4) (a) (iii) of Section 36, as all sums due to any workman or employees from the provident fund, the pension fund and the gratuity fund, do not form part of the liquidation estate/ liquidation assets of the ‘Corporate Debtor’, the question of distribution of the provident fund or the pension fund or the gratuity fund in order of priority and within such period as prescribed under Section 53(1), does not arise - The ‘workmen’s dues’ is mentioned in clause (b) (i) of Section 53(1), which are the dues for the period of twenty-four months preceding the liquidation commencement date. While applying Section 53 of the ‘I&B Code’, Section 326 of the Companies Act, 2013 is relevant for the limited purpose of understanding ‘workmen’s dues” which can be more than provident fund, pension fund and the gratuity fund kept aside and protected under Section 36(4) (iii) - This apart, as the provisions of the ‘I&B Code’ have overriding effect in case of consistency in any other law for the time being enforced, we hold that Section 53(1) (b) read with Section 36(4) will have overriding effect on Section 326(1) (a), including the Explanation (iv) mentioned below Section 326 of the Companies Act, 2013. Once the liquidation estate/ assets of the ‘Corporate Debtor’ under Section 36(1) read with Section 36 (3), do not include all sum due to any workman and employees from the provident fund, the pension fund and the gratuity fund, for the purpose of distribution of assets under Section 53, the provident fund, the pension fund and the gratuity fund cannot be included - The Adjudicating Authority having come to such finding that the aforesaid funds i.e., the provident fund, the pension fund and the gratuity fund do not come within the meaning of ‘liquidation estate’ for the purpose of distribution of assets under Section 53, no interference is required. Appeal dismissed.
|