9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 651X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ginal Petitioner, claims to be employee of the Respondent No. 1 Company "Pawan Hans Ltd.". He filed petition before the Learned National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench (No. 210/213 (B) (ii)/ND/2018) initially against the Respondent No. 1 company and Respondent No. 2, another employee who is stated to be foreman (painter). As he had asked for various reliefs against several officers of the management of company, he amended the petition to add Respondent Nos. 3 to 15, senior officers of the company, including retired senior management officials. 2. The Appellant sought to invoke powers of the NCLT under Section 213 (b) (ii) of the Companies Act 2013 (Act in brief). 3. In short, the Appellant claimed before the NCLT that he had joined ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich according to the Appellant Respondent No. 2 was not technically qualified or competent or authorized to be deployed, but still he was being wrongfully assigned such technical jobs which would put the life of company clients and crew flying the helicopters to great risks. Appellant claimed that the Respondent No. 2 was not qualified or licensed or authorized but he was being paid hefty amounts "overtime" and "additional benefits" besides hotel expenses & to/fro airfare etc. Appellant claimed that he started collecting pay slips of the Respondent No. 2 and other documents and collected evidence to highlight this scam and that he had reported the fact to senior officials in the company but nobody took any action. He claimed that he had sen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2019, present Appeal has been filed. 8. When the Appeal came up before us we had raised question before the Appellant if an employee of the Respondent No. 1 - a Public Sector Undertakings is eligible to file application under Section 213 (b) (ii) of the Companies Act for the grounds as mentioned in the petition. 9. We have heard the Counsel for Appellant. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant referred to the facts emanating from Petition and documents and claimed that under Section 213 an application can be made by any "person" for requesting the NCLT to start an investigation. 10. We have gone through this Appeal and the case which was put up by the Appellant before the Learned NCLT and the defense which was taken by the Respondent. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from time to time. Respondent no.2 is not an isolated exception to be sent on such assignments. The overtime or TA/DA is given to employees in accordance with the rules and regulations of the respondent no.1, a Government company, whose accounts are subjected to internal or external audits. There is no finding of any unauthorized payments in the Audit reports, which again is impugned by the petitioner. 9. We find the allegations made by the petitioner against the respondent are without any foundation and are totally motivated and mala fide. We are also of the opinion that inclusion of helper in a maintenance team is an administrative decision, the work of which is totally controlled and supervised by the AME/Engineer incharge. The manag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re circumstances suggesting that ------ (ii) persons concerned in the formation of the company or the management of its affairs have in connection therewith been guilty of fraud, misfeasance or other misconduct towards the company or towards any of its members; or --- order --- the affairs of the Company to be investigated---'' 12. Perusal of the relevant portions of Section 213 show that what is material is the "satisfaction" of the NCLT that there are circumstances suggesting that the persons concerned in the management of the affairs of the company are guilty of misfeasance or other misconducts towards the company which Appellant claims is fraudulent mismanagement. In the context of the present matter this is the only relevant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere receiving overtime. Respondents pointed out to Ld. NCLT that compared with the Appellant, the Respondent No. 2 was rather more qualified. While the Appellant was only 8th class pass and was appointed as unskilled worker the Respondent No. 2 was qualified, being a matriculate with ITI certification with specialization in painting which was ancillary job and was required to be included in general maintenance team. Respondents also pointed out that when Respondent No. 2 would be free from painting work he was also deputed as helper to fully utilize his services. This is rather required to be appreciated. 14. Considering these factors, it does not appear that the Appellant has made out any case for investigation. It is not that without uti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
