Compnay Appeal No. 1 of 2012. Case: Santosh Kanta Assoldekar Vs The Official Liquidator of National Auto Accessories Ltd.. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Compnay Appeal No. 1 of 2012 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: D. Pangam, Advocate and For Respondents: Amira Razaq, Advocate |
| Judges | F. M. Reis, J. |
| Issue | Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 2(a) |
| Judgement Date | December 11, 2015 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
F. M. Reis, J.
-
Heard Mr. D. Pangam, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Ms. Amira Razaq, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.
-
The above appeal challenges the order passed by the Official Liquidator dated 20/04/2011, whereby the claim put forward by the appellant came to be rejected.
-
Mr. D. Pangam, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has pointed out that the appellant was a workman in the establishment of the company in liquidation and that as his dues were not paid, the workman raised claims with that regard before different authorities. The learned Counsel further pointed out that at the time when the company in liquidation went on strike, it ultimately led to its closure. The learned Counsel also points out that somewhere in the year 2001 there was a settlement arrived before the Conciliation Officer between the Union to which the appellant belongs, with the company in liquidation. The learned Counsel further points out that thereafter on 28/09/2001, the company went in liquidation and an Official Liquidator was appointed by the Court. The learned Counsel further submits that in the year 2004, the appellant raised a claim before the Official Liquidator for all the arrears of wages and other benefits to which the appellant was entitled. The learned Counsel further submits that a part of the claim of the appellant was allowed whereas a substantial claim came to be rejected and, consequently, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Company Judge being appeal No. 2/2006 which was partly allowed and the matter was remanded to the Official Liquidator to decide the claim afresh in accordance with law. The learned Counsel further submits that thereafter the appellant filed a supplementary claim before the Official Liquidator, inter alia, contending that the settlement arrived at in the year 2001 was not in accordance with law and, as such, could not be relied upon. The learned Counsel further submits that the Official Liquidator, however, rejected the claim of the appellant which forced the appellant to file an appeal before this Court being Company Appeal No. 8/2009. The learned Counsel further points out that whilst disposing of the said appeal this Court had inter alia directed the Official Liquidator to examine the claim of the appellant that the settlement was not in accordance with law and a nullity. The learned Counsel further points out that the Official Liquidator...
To continue reading
Request your trial