M/S Aerotron Ltd vs Kingfisher Airlines Limited on 17 September, 2013

[Cites 3, Cited by 3]

Karnataka High Court

M/S Aerotron Ltd vs Kingfisher Airlines Limited on 17 September, 2013

Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy

                       1


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

  DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013

                    BEFORE

 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY

COMPANY APPLICATION Nos.1260/2013 AND 1513/2013
                      IN
        COMPANY PETITION No.214/2012


 BETWEEN:

 M/S AEROTRON LTD
 A COMPANY INCORPORATED
 AND EXISTING UNDER
 THE LAWS OF ENGLAND AND WALES
 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
 AT WESTLY HOUSE
 FLEMING WAY, WEST SUSSEX
 RH10(GA), UNITED KINGDOM
 REPRESENTED HEREIN
 BY ITS CONSTITUTIONAL ATTORNEY
 MR MOHIT GUNJA                    ... APPLICANT
                                       (COMMON)
 (BY SRI. ANKIT MAJUMDAR, ADV.)


 AND

 KINGFISHER AIRLINES LIMITED
 UB TOWER,LEVEL 12, UB CITY
 24, VITAL MALLYA ROAD
 BANGALORE                        ... RESPONDENT
                                       (COMMON)

 (BY SRI. VIVEK HOLLA, ADV.
 FOR M/S. HOLLA AND HOLLA ASSTS., ADVS.)
                         2



IMPLEADING APPLICANTS IN C.A. No.1260/2013:

1. SMT.VIJAYA BHAT
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
W/O SRI K.G. PRAVEEN
TECHNICIAN
KINGFISHER AIRLINES LTD.
RESIDING AT NO.242, S-MIG-B
16TH BLOCK, K.H.B. PHASE V
YELAHANKA NEW TOWN
BANGALORE

2. SANKARAN SRINIVASAN
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
S/O SRI N. SANKARAN
MAINTENANCE PLANNER (ENGG)
KINGFISHER AIRLINES LTD.
RESIDING AT NO.1120
2ND FLOOR, 21ST CROSS
14TH MAIN, 3RD SECTOR
HSR LAYOUT, BANGALORE

BOTH ARE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES
OF THE "ACTION COMMITTEE OF
KINGFISHER AIRLINES WORKERS
IN KARNATAKA" NO.807
5TH MAIN ROAD, VIJAYANAGAR
BANGALORE 560 040

(BY SRI. D. LEELAKRISHNAN, ADV.)



IMPLEADING APPLICANTS IN C.A. No.1513/2013:

1. SRI GANGADHARA L
S/O. SRI H LINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS M4B
(GUEST SUPPORT STAFF)
                          3


  WITH EMP.I.D. No.15645
  KINGFISHER AIRLINES CALL CENTRE
  CUNNINGHAM ROAD
  BANGALORE-560 052
  R/AT NO.61, 3RD FLOOR
  3RD 'A' CROSS, 1ST MAIN ROAD
  J C NAGARA , GELEYARABALAGA
  BANGALORE-560 086

  2. SRI NAGENDRA KUMAR
  S/O LATE M RAMDASS
  AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
  WORKING AS M4B
  (GUEST SUPPORT STAFF)
  WITH EMP.I.D. NO.14269
  KINGFISHER AIRLINES CALL CENTRE
  CUNNINGHAM ROAD
  BANGALORE-560 052
  RESIDING AT 18/3, 4TH CROSS
  MUNIVENKATASWAMAPPA LAYOUT
  CHAMUNDI NAGAR
  (SUBBAIAH COMPOUND)
  R T NAGAR POST
  BANGALORE-560 032

  BOTH ARE AUTHORIZED
  REPRESENTEATIVE OF THE
  "ACTION COMMITTEE OF WORKERS
  OF BANGALORE CALL CENTRE
  OF KINGFISHER AIRLINES WORKERS"
  No.807, 5TH MAIN ROAD
  VIJAYANAGAR
  BANGALORE-560 040

  (BY SRI. D. LEELAKRISHNAN, ADV.)


     THESE APPLICATIONS ARE FILED UNDER RULES 6,
9 AND 43 OF COMPANIES COURT RULES, 1959 R/W.
ORDER I RULE 10 OF CPC PRAYING FOR IMPLEADING,
ETC.
                                 4


     THESE APPLICATIONS COMING ON ORDERS THIS,
DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                              ORDER

These applications are said to be filed by employees of Kingfisher Airlines Limited seeking an opportunity of being heard in the winding up petitions. In the affidavit accompanying applications, it is stated that they oppose winding up petition. Sri. D. Leela Krishnan, learned Counsel for the applicants, points out to paragraphs 10 and 11 of the decision of the Apex Court in NATIONAL TEXTILE WORKERS' UNION AND OTHERS VS. P.R. RAMAKRISHNAN AND OTHERS reported in (1983) 1 SCC 228, in support of the contention that the workmen are entitled to an opportunity of hearing before winding up and before a company petition is admitted. Learned Counsel submits that the said judgment was much prior to the bringing into the statute book Section 529A of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, relating to overriding preferential payment to the workers of their dues. 5

2. Perusal of Section 529A discloses that the statutory provision is made in the matter of overriding preferential payment, in particular, the dues to employees of the Company. This statutory provision does not invest a right in the workmen to be heard before the winding up petition or before its admission. The decision in Ramakrishnan's case (Supra) makes it abundantly clear that the Apex Court departed from the normal rule that it is the creditors and contributories who could have either supported or opposed the company petition by invoking Rule 34 of the Company (Court) Rules, 1959, and by investing in the workmen a right to be heard even before admission of the company petition. If that is so, in my opinion, Section 529A, inserted in the statute after the judgment in Ramakrishnan's case, does not change the position as declared by the Supreme Court over the rights of the workmen to be heard in the winding up petition. 6

3. In that view of the matter, these applications are taken on record and are treated as opposing the winding up petition. Ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

JUDGE Cs/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court