Pending minimum wages claims may continue after liquidation, but recovery must follow the insolvency waterfall.

A pending Minimum Wages Act claim may continue after liquidation under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code because section 33(5) bars only fresh proceedings, not proceedings already initiated before liquidation. The Controlling Authority's adjudication of the pre-liquidation wage claim was therefore valid. However, the resulting liability cannot be enforced outside the insolvency framework: it must be satisfied from liquidation assets in accordance with the statutory priority scheme under section 53. Workmen's dues receive priority only to the extent recognised by that waterfall, and the claim must be dealt with through the liquidation process.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether proceedings under the Minimum Wages Act could continue against the corporate debtor after a liquidation order under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and (ii) whether the amount adjudicated as minimum wages and compensation could be directed to be paid only in accordance with the liquidation waterfall.

Issue (i): whether proceedings under the Minimum Wages Act could continue against the corporate debtor after a liquidation order under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

Analysis: A liquidation order under section 33 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ends the moratorium that operated during the insolvency resolution process. After liquidation commences, section 33(5) bars institution of fresh proceedings against the corporate debtor, but does not prohibit the continuance of proceedings that had already been initiated. The minimum wages claim had been filed before liquidation, and the later adjudication by the Controlling Authority was therefore not without jurisdiction. The overriding effect of section 238 of the Code does not invalidate such adjudication where the proceeding is maintainable and the resulting liability is only required to be dealt with under the insolvency regime.

Conclusion: The proceedings under the Minimum Wages Act could continue and the order passed by the Controlling Authority was valid.

Issue (ii): whether the amount adjudicated as minimum wages and compensation could be directed to be paid only in accordance with the liquidation waterfall

Analysis: Section 53 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 governs distribution of liquidation assets and prescribes the order of priority. Workmen's dues for the specified period receive priority, but claims beyond that period are not extinguished; they fall to be considered within the remaining categories in the statutory waterfall. The liability determined under the Minimum Wages Act must therefore be satisfied from liquidation assets in the manner and priority contemplated by section 53. Section 38 does not prevent the liquidator from processing and distributing such dues during liquidation.

Conclusion: The adjudicated amount had to be paid in accordance with the priority distribution under section 53 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Final Conclusion: The writ challenge failed, and the impugned minimum-wages liability was sustained, with payment to be made through the liquidation process according to statutory priority.

Ratio Decidendi: A claim that was already pending before liquidation may be adjudicated after liquidation commences, but its satisfaction must occur only through the insolvency liquidation waterfall and not outside the statutory distribution scheme.

---