TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (10) TMI 711
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ondent : Shri. A.G Sathyanarayana, Advocate ORDER Per : Ashok Kumar Borah, Member (J) 1. These appeals have been filed by the Applicants who were stated to be workmen/ employees of Raihan Healthcare Private Limited, under Section 42 of Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred as Code) aggrieved by the decision dated 23.07.2020 of the Liquidator intimating them that their claims are partly admitted and remaining claims are rejected. 2. The brief facts are as under: - An application IBA/240/2019 has been filed under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the "Code'") read with Rule 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....im filed by Appellant in Form-E is holding good and tenable. Therefore, this Hon'ble Tribunal may classify the appellant under the category of workmen and may adjudicate the claim of the appellant or direction may be given to the respondent to approve the claims of the appellant. II. To modify the Annexure 4 order passed by the respondent and adjudicate the claim and grant full amount along with 18% interest claimed in the Annexure 3 claim petition and on the basis of the books of accounts of the corporate debtor to the appellant/workmen of Raihan Healthcare (P) Limited. III. The Liquidator may be directed to disburse the partly admitted amount of each appellant as first priority immediately before settling the claim of other c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... rejection". The basis on which the amount admitted has been arrived at and the reason for rejecting the amount of salary, TDS, interest and others have not been recorded or explained. Thus, the Liquidator has badly erred and failed to appreciate the onerous duty cast upon him as per Regulation 19(4) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants stated that the liquidator treated the appellants as Operational Creditors. The liquidator asked the appellants to file a claim petition in Form C. But the appellants filed the claim petition in Form E. Without considering the facts and circumstances and the subsequent rulings of the Apex Court, the Liquidator ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uch person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of dispute. It excludes persons employed in Army/Navy/Air Force/Police and those employed in mainly managerial or administrative, supervisory capacity and drawing wages of more than INR 10,000/-. Appellants being professionals and drawing wages of more than INR 10,000/- cannot take the advantage of workmen/Employee. III. It is also stated that the Liquidator adjudicated the claims as per the provisions of the code after collation of the Corporate Debtor's records and documents submitted by the applicants. Without appreciating the decision of the Liquidator to file the claim in Form C, appellants filed their claim in Form E and now di....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... which the doctors recommend to the hospital and the appellants were full time practicing doctors working under the management, they come under the category of workmen/employees. 11. Section 3(36) of I&B Code,2016 defines "Workmen" as under: - "workman" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in clause (s) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 defines "Workman" as under: - "workman" means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceedi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... question of fact and that a finding of fact can be arrived at by this bench only on the basis of evidence on record. 13. In order to verify whether the appellants are paid salary and whether the T.D.S was made, vide order dated 02.08.2021 the appellants were directed to produce the acknowledgement of IT returns showing the income and the tax paid by them during their engagement with the Corporate Debtor. However, the appellants have not produced the same. The learned counsel appearing for appellants could not properly answer why these documents could not be produced. Their contention is that even though the tax is deducted under Section 194 (j) of the Income Tax Act,1961 they have to be classified as workmen and that this provision is o....