Workmen's dues in liquidation follow pari passu distribution, with no individual priority outside the statutory scheme.

In winding up proceedings, workmen's dues are to be distributed strictly under the statutory scheme of overriding preferential payment and pari passu treatment. The Court found no error apparent, new material, or other ground to review or recall the earlier disbursement order, as the claim had already been reverified and payment made to place the applicant at par with other workmen. The applicant could not claim priority over similarly situated workmen or employees outside the statutory framework, and any further payment would depend on available funds and remain subject to equal treatment.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the order dated 08.06.2016 warranted review or recall on the applicant's challenge to the verification and disbursement of his workmen's claim; (ii) whether the applicant could claim priority payment over other similarly situated workmen and employees in the winding up proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether the order dated 08.06.2016 warranted review or recall on the applicant's challenge to the verification and disbursement of his workmen's claim.

Analysis: The application repeated earlier objections already considered in the winding up proceedings. The claim had been reverified on multiple occasions, the Official Liquidator had placed reports before the Court, and payment had already been made to bring the applicant at par with other workmen. No error apparent, new material, or other ground justifying review or recall was shown.

Conclusion: The request for review or recall was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the applicant could claim priority payment over other similarly situated workmen and employees in the winding up proceedings.

Analysis: In winding up, workmen's dues are governed by the statutory scheme of overriding preferential payment and pari passu distribution. The Court held that the applicant could receive only the amount admissible at par with similarly situated workmen and could not be granted priority dehors the statutory framework. Further disbursement, if any, would depend on availability of funds and would also be at par with other workmen.

Conclusion: The applicant was not entitled to any priority payment over other workmen and employees.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the earlier disbursement order failed, and the applicant's claim was held to be confined to pari passu treatment with other workmen in liquidation.

Ratio Decidendi: In liquidation, workmen's dues must be distributed strictly in accordance with the statutory scheme of overriding preferential payment and pari passu treatment, and no individual workman can priority outside that framework merely because he repeatedly approaches the Court.

---