Karnataka High Court
R.A.Parvathikar vs The Official Liquidator on 19 June, 2014
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A.S. Bopanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA
COMPANY APPLICATION NOS.812 & 813 OF 2014
IN
COMPANY PETITION NO.166 OF 2001
BETWEEN:
R.A. PARVATHIKAR
S/O. LATE ANNA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
R/O. I MAIN, 6TH CROSS,
MALLAPUR ROAD,
NEAR THIRUPATHI APARTMENTS,
KOTUR PLOT,
DHARWAD .. COMMON APPLICANT
(BY SRI MALLIKARJUNA G CONTRACTOR, ADV.)
AND:
THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR
THE MYSORE KIRLOSAKAR LTD., (IN LIQN.),
12TH FLOOR, RAHEJA TOWERS,
M.G.ROAD,
BENGALURU. .. COMMON RESPONDENT
(BY SRI K S MAHADEVAN & V JAYARAM, ADVS.)
THESE APPLICATIONS ARE FILED U/R 164 OF
THE COMPANIES [COURT] RULES, 1959, PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE FORM NO.69 AND ISSUE DIRECTIONS TO
2
THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR TO RE-ADJUDICATE THE
CLAIMS OF THE APPELLANT BY WAY OF ADMITTING
CLOSURE COMPENSATION AND GRATUITY. AND U/S
5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT, R/W RULE 164 OF THE
COMPANY [COURT] RULES, 1959, PRAYING TO
CONDONE 1371 DAYS DELAY IN FILING THE
APPLICATION.
*******
THESE APPLICATIONS COMING ON FOR
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Company Application No.813/2014 is filed seeking condonation of delay of 1371 days in filing the Company Application No.812/2014.
2. Though there is inordinate delay, considering the fact that the applicant is a former employee of the Company under liquidation and is presently seeking financial benefits for the period he had rendered services in the Company in liquidation, the delay is necessarily tobe condoned. Hence, delay is condoned and CA No.813 of 2014 is allowed.
3. CA No.812/2014 is filed by the applicant claiming to be aggrieved by the rejection of portion of 3 the amount claimed. The Official Liquidator while adjudicating the claims had admitted the portion of the amount and has rejected to the extent as indicated in the order. The contention in the instant Application is that the Official Liquidator was not justified in not considering the closure compensation and the payment of Gratuity. The said issue has already been considered by this Court in CA Nos.1382 and 1433 of 2012 disposed of on 21.3.2013. With regard to the gratuity amount, it has been held that the claim is to be preferred before the Gratuity Trust and as such, the reason assigned by the Official Liquidator is justified.
4. The issue is however with regard to closure of compensation. Though the Official Liquidator has held that the applicant would be entitled to the closure compensation, there appears to be certain mis- conception with regard to the manner of calculation and the head under which it is to be paid. The observation that it is arrears of wages would not be appropriate. The method of calculation of the compensation has been 4 considered in the above noticed application which was disposed off by this Court.
5. Hence, on that aspect, the Official Liquidator would have to take note of the length of service rendered by the applicant and based on the same, the compensation calculated at 15 days wages for every completed year of service will have to be reckoned. Therefore, the Official Liquidator would have to re- consider that aspect of the matter. In all other respects, the order of the Official Liquidator is justified. To enable re-consideration, the order dated 01.08.2010 impugned herein is set aside to the extent indicated above. The Official Liquidator shall re-consider the matter in terms of the above observation.
Accordingly, the applications are disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE PL