TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 651X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against the Respondent No. 2 employee regarding overtime and other benefits Respondent No. 2 received in performing his job over number of years. The allegations made by the Appellant are quite sweeping in nature. The case put up by the respondents before Learned NCLT shows that the Appellant was also part of maintenance team on several occasions and although he is only 8th standard pass and was appointed as an unskilled worker he had also received similar benefits. The respondents put up the case before the Learned NCTL that the teams deployed for carrying out the maintenance jobs were under the direct supervision of AME/Engineer-in-chief who alone was incharge and responsible for the job. For such maintenance and inspection the team used to include even non-technical employees for assistance. The Appellant failed to bring material which could invoke satisfaction of existence of circumstances to initiate action under Section 213 of the Act. The Learned NCLT rightly dismissed the Application with costs. - Company Appeal (AT) No. 140 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 12-3-2020 - [Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson , [Justice A.I.S. Cheema] Member Judicial And [Kanthi Narahari] Mem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ters for which 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 sent representation to even the Minister of Civil Aviation and the Hon ble Minister had directed one Sh. B.C. Behra to conduct inspection/enquiry. Appellant claimed that even this inspection/ enquiry was just an eyewash and key elements of the scam were put under the carpet. According to him no action was taken and the said Loot of the funds of the company continued. According to him till he moved the NCLT there was estimated loss of &# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion assignment cannot be alleged as a collusion between Respondent No.2 and other respondent who are senior officials. Deputing Respondent No.2 as a part of the maintenance team is an administrative job which is best left to those in-charge of the operation of the company and cannot be questioned by this Tribunal. We do not find that inclusion of Respondent No.2 in the maintenance team in any way amounting to defrauding creditors, members or other persons. The payments towards overtime and other reimbursements are not in violation of the company s policies. The respondents have alleged that the petitioner himself has been a beneficiary of receiving overtime, a fact deliberately suppressed from this Court. It is also submitted that every maintenance team has helpers to assist the technicians and apart from the petitioner and Respondent No.2, there have been several other nontechnical hands included in the maintenance team 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 i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 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 aspect. Thus important is the satisfaction of the Learned NCLT. We find that NCLT has given reasons for its non-satisfaction, which cannot be said to be baseless. 13. We have also gone through the memo of the Appeal and Petition/Application which was filed before the NCLT and annexures and the defense which was up. Going through the material, it appears to us also that the Appellant has grudge against the Respondent No. 2 employee regarding overtime and other benefits Respondent No. 2 received in performing his job over number of years. The allegations made by the Appellant are quite sweeping in nature. The case put up by the respondents before Learned NCLT shows that the Appellant was also part of maintenance team on several occasions and although he is only 8th standard pass and was appointed as an unskilled wor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
