AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (11) TMI 1141
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2.1. The CIRP of the Corporate Debtor commenced vide order dated 01.01.2018 passed by the Adjudicating Authority on an application filed under Section 7 by the Allahabad Bank against the Corporate Debtor- 'Biotor Industries Ltd.'. On an application filed by the Resolution Professional, an order dated 31.12.2018 was passed by the Adjudicating Authority directing for liquidation of the corporate debtor. Liquidator made publication inviting claims from the stakeholders. The Appellants in their capacity as Authorised Representative of 271 workmen submitted their claims in Form F vide e-mail dated 07.02.2019. Liquidator vide e-mail dated 25.02.2019 asked the Appellants to submit the proof of employment in the company in the period of two years preceding the liquidation commencement date in order to admit their claims. The liquidator vide e-mail dated 02.03.2019 communicated the rejection of the claims. Aggrieved by the rejection of the claims by the liquidator, Appellant filed MA No.1847 of 2019 before the Adjudicating Authority. Liquidator filed an Affidavit-in-reply dated 17.06.2019. Appellants filed an application on 26.06.2019 bringing on record certain additional documents. Adj....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....which are insufficient to accept the claims as submitted by the Appellants. Insofar as the submissions of the Appellants alleging violation of the provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, it was open for the workmen to raise dispute and claim under the Industrial Dispute Act which having never been raised, it is not open for the Appellants to claim any entitlement in the liquidation proceedings of the corporate debtor which commenced on 31.12.2018. 5. We have considered the submissions of the Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. From the facts brought on the record, it is clear that the corporate debtor ceased to work from June, 2010 and according to the case of the Appellants themselves, they worked in the factory till April 2012 only. The claim was filed by the Appellants who were asked by the liquidator to submit evidence to substantiate the claims. No satisfactory evidence having been produced by the Appellant that they were in the employment of the corporate debtor on the date of commencement of the liquidation, the Liquidator rejected the claims and sent communication dated 02.03.2019 which is as follows:- "Therefore, with regards to the du....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oticed in paragraph 3(iv) which is to the following effect:- "iv. Under section 25(o) (7) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 permission of the State Government is required for closing down a factory/company employing more than 100 workmen. In the instant case, admittedly more than 100 employees are employed and no permission is granted by the State Government to close down the Corporate Debtor. Section 25(o)(7) further states that if the permission is refused, then the workmen shall be entitled to all the benefits under the law. Thus, the Applicants submit that as long as there is no compliance of Section 25(o) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 there is no closure in the eyes of law and the employees who were ready and willing to work, the workmen are entitled to wages as if they are working. In the present case, since there is no closure in the eyes of the law and all the workmen have been reporting for work, they are to be treated as working till date and consequently, all the workers are entitled to wages." 9. The Adjudicating Authority, after hearing the parties, has noted submission of the Applicants/Appellants that they have been continuously working till Apri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ile submitting their claims in Form 'F' before the Respondent, which, in our considered view, do not adequately establish the dues to the workman for the period stipulated therein. 10. The Applicants while filing the claim in Form 'F' had relied upon the I-Cards and Pay Slip of some month in the year 2010. The Applicants while submitting Form 'F' have claimed the dues of workmen from November, 2010 onwards. This implies that the workmen have not been paid since November 2010. However, it is very hard to believe that the Applicants and the workmen whom they purportedly represent, worked unpaid at the factories of the Corporate Debtor from November, 2010 until April, 2012 and even thereafter, without raising any industrial dispute or agitating for their rights or asserting the same before the Labour courts/Industrial Tribunal or any other competent legal forum. There is also no document on record to show that the workmen/employees or the Applicants herein had served any notice upon the Corporate Debtor demanding the payment of unpaid wages/salaries. There is further not an iota of evidence to show that at any point of time subsequent to 2010 or 2012, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The said issue ought to have been raised by the Appellants before the Industrial Court or Labour Court. 14. In the above context, we may refer to the judgment of this Tribunal in "Era Labourer Union of Sidcul, Pant Nagar, through its Secretary vs. Apex Buildsys Ltd.- Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1572 of 2024" decided on 20.09.2024. In the above case also, labourer union of Sidcul, Pant Nagar had filed a claim in the CIRP of the corporate debtor which commenced on 20.08.2018. Direction for liquidation was also passed by the Adjudicating Authority on 09.01.2020. Before the Adjudicating Authority, IA was filed by Era Labourer Union where declaration of the lockout on 31.07.2017 was under challenge and Appellant claimed for payment from date of the lockout till the commencement of the liquidation proceedings. The liquidator had not accepted the claim from date of lockout till the commencement of the CIRP. The claims of the Claimants were not verified from the date of closure. Adjudicating Authority rejected the application of the Labourer Union questioning the layoff. Challenging the said order, the appeal was filed. In the above case, the Labourer Union had filed Writ Petit....