Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. There is an affidavit-in-reply, which will be found at page 195 following, and the important paragraphs with regard to the affidavit-in-reply will appear from paragraph 40 onwards. Counsel for the company emphasises on three points in the affidavit-in-reply. First, that the scheme was not intended to affect the employees because independently of the scheme such employees would get full payment of their lawful dues except in case of winding up. When the matter was mentioned on 30th January, 1967, on behalf of some of the employees the court ordered that, without prejudice to any right or claim of the workers, if any, under the Industrial Disputes Act and without prejudice to the preferential claim, if any, for arrears of their dues, proxy forms were to be issued to them and the meeting of creditors would be held as directed. Secondly, the deponent in the affidavit-in-reply alleged in paragraph 44 that, under the agreement dated 25th August, 1965, the company agreed that there would be no retrenchment of the clerical staff of the Calcutta ghats for a certain period and that had no reference to the entire closure of the business of the company. Thirdly, in paragraph 48 of the affidavit-in-reply, it was submitted that the employees were not entitled to attend the meeting as it was never intended to enter into any compromise or arrangement with them.