Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. We heard the oral arguments presented by the Learned Counsels for both the parties and perused the record.

6. The Learned Counsel for Appellants Surendra Singh Hada and Ors. has claimed that the claims of workmen and employees were not paid by APPL despite the two TLSAs, which were signed between the parties, and which APPL was obliged to comply with. He has referred to the order of AAIFR in CA No. 301/2000 dated 7.1.2005 to contend that the company APPL has defaulted in payment of the dues of the workmen. He has further referred to the bar to coercive action under section 22 of SICA to claim that COMPANY APPEAL (AT) (Ins)NO.578 OF 2021 COMPANY APPEAL (AT) (Ins) No.803 OF 2021 during the period starting with the sanction of rehabilitation scheme till repeal of SICA the workers could not take any coercive action against APPL for payment of their dues and therefore, the matter of forcing payment of workers dues could not be pursued by the workers and hence this period should be excluded while calculating limitation of the section 9 application.

7. The Learned Counsel for Appellants Surendra Singh Hada & Ors. has further referred to the repeal of SICA by the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Repeal Act, 2003 and its amendments brought about in response to section 252 of the IBC to claim that any reference made or initially pending before BIFR or any proceedings of whatever nature pending before the AAIFR or BIFR under SICA stood abated and therefore, the workers have filed an application under section 9 of the IBC for payment of their past dues as operational debt which is due and payable and in default of payment. He has further contended that the payment due to the workers is an operational debt under IBC and default in its payment has been continuing from the date of sanction of rehabilitation scheme and thus the default of payment of operational debt of workers is within limitation as required under IBC. He has referred to the judgment of this COMPANY APPEAL (AT) (Ins)NO.578 OF 2021 COMPANY APPEAL (AT) (Ins) No.803 OF 2021 Tribunal in the matter of Mr. Gouri Prasad Goneka v. Punjab National Bank & Anr. [CA (AT) (Ins.) No. 28 of 2019] wherein it is held that once the corporate debtor was declared as a sick industrial unit by BIFR, which passed direction under section 21(1) of SICA, which was not possible for the secured creditor to take any coercive action against it, without prior permission of BIFR. He has thus contended that the period starting from the date when the corporate debtor was declared as sick industrial unit by BIFR till the date when SICA was repealed and IBC was brought into force w.e.f. 1.12.2016 stands excluded for the purpose of computation of period of limitation.

12. The Learned Counsel for Respondent APPL has also explained that while section 22 of the erstwhile SICA allows suspension of specified coercive actions against sick industrial companies, section 22(1) gives power to any person to move against the company with the consent of BIFR or AAIFR. He has COMPANY APPEAL (AT) (Ins)NO.578 OF 2021 COMPANY APPEAL (AT) (Ins) No.803 OF 2021 added that in the present case, there is enough evidence to show that full efforts to pay workers' dues were made and, therefore, no worker can now claim default in payment of his/her dues.

15. Lastly, the Learned Counsel for Respondent APPL has referred to the judgment dated 28.7.2009 of the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2006 of 2009, wherein one of the issues under consideration was the COMPANY APPEAL (AT) (Ins)NO.578 OF 2021 COMPANY APPEAL (AT) (Ins) No.803 OF 2021 payment of dues to the workers. He has pointed out that it is noticed in the said judgment that a retired Hon'ble Justice Mr. N.N. Mathur was appointed by the State Government of Rajasthan as caretaker to identify and make payments to genuine workers of erstwhile JKSL and that the workers were given full opportunity to present their claims before to Hon'ble Justice Mr. N.N. Mathur. In the light of such an arrangement made by the State Government of Rajasthan, the Learned Counsel for Respondent has claimed that it does not now lie with the workers/employees to claim that any past due as 'operational debt' which is due and payable and in default; and if such a due was either not claimed or not accepted by the workers, it is entirely their responsibility and such workers cannot now claim any default in payment of their dues, and moreover such a matter is, therefore, a dispute between the corporate debtor and the workers.