Workmen's dues in winding up are confined to the statutory scheme; bonus, gratuity interest, and post-closure provident fund contributions were not enlarged.

In winding up, the Companies Act's definition of "workmen's dues" was treated as exhaustive, so bonus was not recoverable with priority because it was not expressly included in the statutory scheme. Gratuity remained a permissible workmen's dues item, but statutory interest on delayed gratuity was not recoverable from the liquidator as of right, since the liquidator is not the defaulting employer under the Payment of Gratuity Act. The liquidator was also not required to make post-closure employer contributions to the provident fund, as the duty extends only to existing accrued dues, while recovery and facilitation of payable fund amounts remained necessary.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether bonus claimed by workmen could be treated as part of "workmen's dues" payable by the liquidator in winding up; (ii) whether interest on delayed payment of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act was recoverable from the liquidator as of right; (iii) whether the liquidator was bound to make the employer's contribution to the provident fund for the post-closure period.

Issue (i): whether bonus claimed by workmen could be treated as part of "workmen's dues" payable by the liquidator in winding up.

Analysis: The expression "workmen's dues" under the Companies Act was held to be an exhaustive definition. It covers wages or salary, holiday remuneration, compensation under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and sums due from provident, pension or gratuity funds, but it does not expressly include bonus. The Court held that when the Legislature adopted the narrower industrial law concept of wages, the exclusion of bonus from that definition could not be ignored. The special priority given in winding up could not be extended to claims not specifically included in the statutory scheme.

Conclusion: The claim for bonus was rejected and the liquidator was not bound to pay it.

Issue (ii): whether interest on delayed payment of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act was recoverable from the liquidator as of right.

Analysis: Gratuity itself was treated as a permissible workmen's dues item, but the Court distinguished gratuity from interest on delayed payment. The liability to pay interest under the Payment of Gratuity Act arises from the defaulting employer's statutory obligation after determination of gratuity, whereas in liquidation the liquidator acts under the Companies Act and not as the employer. The Court held that Section 7(3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act could not be read directly into the winding-up provisions, and any claim to interest would have to be considered, if at all, under the Companies (Court) Rules and general law when surplus funds or other conditions permit.

Conclusion: The claim for statutory interest on gratuity was rejected at this stage.

Issue (iii): whether the liquidator was bound to make the employer's contribution to the provident fund for the post-closure period.

Analysis: The Court held that the provident fund provisions protect sums already due from the employer before winding up and give priority to existing accrued liabilities, but they do not make the liquidator the employer or require him to create fresh post-liquidation contributions from the assets in his hands. His obligation is to preserve and recover fund amounts already due and to assist the workmen in realising them, not to finance continuing employer contributions after winding up.

Conclusion: The prayer to direct the liquidator to make the employer's provident fund contribution was rejected, though the liquidator was directed to take steps to recover and facilitate payment of provident fund dues already due.

Final Conclusion: The application succeeded only to the extent of directing re-adjudication of the identified workmen's claims, while the substantive claims for bonus, statutory interest on gratuity, and post-liquidation employer provident fund contribution were not granted.

Ratio Decidendi: In winding-up, only those workmen's claims that fall within the exhaustively defined statutory scheme of the Companies Act are payable with priority, and welfare statute entitlements cannot be enlarged against the liquidator beyond that scheme unless the statute expressly so provides.

---