2019 (8) TMI 389 - AT - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

NCLAT Upholds Rejection of Section 9 Applications in Employment Dispute

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) upheld the rejection of three Applications under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, ... Maintainability of application - defence of the Respondent is that as per assignment policy of the Respondent, the employees are eligible for basic and Provident Fund as Indian salary in Indian currency - HELD THAT:- It is apparent that disputes had arisen, before the Appellant could serve Notices on the Respondent. The defence of Respondent is based on documents prior in time. It is not a case of admitted or apparent debt and the Adjudicating Authority is not expected to enter into the disputed questions of facts. In the present matter, the documents being relied on by Respondent show prior existing disputes with regard to the Service of Appellant. The Respondent had raised issue with the Appellant with regard to the services, he was rendering and the dispute was pre-existing and thus, we find that the Adjudicating Authority rightly rejected the three Applications filed by the Appellant under Section 9 of I&B Code. Appeal dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Rejection of three Applications under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 by the Adjudicating Authority.2. Grievances related to non-payment of allowances, salaries, and deductions.3. Claims of debt by the Appellant against the Respondent Company.4. Defence put up by the Respondent against the three Applications.5. Disputes arising from the employment contract and service of the Appellant.Issue 1: Rejection of Applications under Section 9 of the I&B CodeThe Appellant filed three Applications under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, claiming to be an Operational Creditor due to non-payment of allowances and salaries by the Respondent Company. The Adjudicating Authority rejected all three Applications, leading to the Appeals before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). The Appeals were based on claims of debt related to the Appellant's service and alleged defaults in payment.Issue 2: Grievances of the AppellantIn the three Appeals, the Appellant raised grievances concerning non-payment of various amounts by the Respondent. These included car allowances, salary dues, and deductions made by the Respondent. The Appellant issued Section 8 Notices to the Respondent regarding these outstanding amounts, which were not resolved, leading to the filing of Applications under Section 9 of the I&B Code.Issue 3: Respondent's DefenceThe Respondent Company opposed the three Applications by providing a detailed defence. They argued that the Appellant had failed to comply with company policies and contractual obligations, especially regarding settlements after foreign travel assignments. The Respondent claimed that disputes had already arisen between the parties, as evidenced by prior communications and actions taken by the Respondent in response to alleged breaches by the Appellant.Issue 4: Disputes Arising from EmploymentThe disputes between the parties stemmed from various issues, including the Appellant's deputation to Japan, alleged non-compliance with business obligations, and discrepancies in attendance and leave records. The Respondent highlighted instances of the Appellant's unauthorized absence and failure to follow company procedures, leading to deductions in salary and disputes over entitlements.Issue 5: NCLAT's DecisionAfter hearing both parties and reviewing the submissions, the NCLAT found that the disputes raised by the Respondent regarding the Appellant's service and conduct predated the Section 8 Notices issued by the Appellant. The Tribunal concluded that the Adjudicating Authority was correct in rejecting the Applications under Section 9 of the I&B Code. Consequently, the Appeals filed by the Appellant were dismissed, with no costs awarded to either party.In conclusion, the NCLAT upheld the rejection of the Applications, emphasizing the existence of pre-existing disputes and the inability to establish clear debt claims by the Appellant. The judgment highlights the importance of resolving disputes and adhering to contractual obligations in employment relationships to avoid legal complexities under the I&B Code.