CoC-approved Plan Violating Sec 30(2) by Admitting only 35.13% of PF and Gratuity Claims of Workmen

  • Blog|News|Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code|
  • 4 Min Read
  • By Taxmann
  • |
  • Last Updated on 29 April, 2023

Recent Posts

Blog, News, Company Law

SEBI Board Approves SME IPO Norm Changes | Mandates ‘Rs. 1 Crore’ Operating Profit in 2 of 3 Preceding Years for DRHP Filing

Blog, News, Account & Audit

[Global Financial Insights] IASB Amends IFRS for Nature-Dependent Contracts and More

Latest from Taxmann

violation of section 30(2)

Case Details: Mrs. C.G. Vijyalakshmi v. Kumar Rajan, Resolution Professional - [2023] 149 taxmann.com 234 (NCLAT-Chennai)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

    • Justice M. Venugopal, Judicial Member & Ms Shreesha Merla, Technical Member
    • K.R. Jinan, Adv. & Abhilash Nediyalil Abraham, PCS for the Appellant.
    • P.V. Dinesh, Adv. P.V. Vinod, Adv., P.H. Arvindh Pandian, Sr. Adv., Shivshankar R. Panicker & Ms Sirshti Thukral for the Respondent. , Advs. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the financial creditor bank filed an application u/s 7 of the IBC against the corporate debtor, which was admitted by the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT).

The respondent was appointed as a resolution professional (RP). The RP made a public announcement and a resolution plan submitted by the successful resolution applicant (SRA) was approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC). The RP then filed an application before the NCLT seeking approval of the said resolution plan.

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) by the impugned order approved the said resolution plan. Thereafter, an appeal was filed before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT).

The appellants (i.e. employees/workmen of the corporate debtor) contended that the approved resolution plan was in contravention of section 30(2)(e) of the IBC as the RP and the CoC had ignored the applicability of the EPF and MP Act, 1952 and the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972, by allocating only a partial amount towards PF and GF and were not including the interest component.

The appellants, further contended that the Provident Fund, Gratuity Fund and interest were to be allocated to the appellants in full without any deduction. However, only 35.13% of their provident fund and gratuity claims were admitted in the said resolution plan, having treated them as secured creditors.

NCLAT Held

The NCLAT observed that PF and gratuity were to be paid in full as per the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

The NCLAT, further observed that since the amount paid to the appellant was only 35.13%, having treated them as a secured creditor, there was a violation of the provisions of section 30(2) of the IBC with respect to the payment of PF and gratuity.

The NCLAT held that the provident fund dues are not subject to distribution u/s 53(1) of the IBC and cannot be treated as secured debt. Therefore, any part payment of dues by the successful resolution applicant (SRA) was unjustified as per section 14B of the EPF Act.

The NCLAT, further held that SRA was obliged to make payment of unpaid provident and gratuity fund and pending dues to workmen/employees till the date of commencement of the CIRP.

List of Cases Reviewed

List of Cases Referred to

Disclaimer: The content/information published on the website is only for general information of the user and shall not be construed as legal advice. While the Taxmann has exercised reasonable efforts to ensure the veracity of information/content published, Taxmann shall be under no liability in any manner whatsoever for incorrect information, if any.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

«
»

Everything on Tax and Corporate Laws of India

To subscribe to our weekly newsletter please log in/register on Taxmann.com

Author: Taxmann

Taxmann Publications has a dedicated in-house Research & Editorial Team. This team consists of a team of Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, and Lawyers. This team works under the guidance and supervision of editor-in-chief Mr Rakesh Bhargava.

The Research and Editorial Team is responsible for developing reliable and accurate content for the readers. The team follows the six-sigma approach to achieve the benchmark of zero error in its publications and research platforms. The team ensures that the following publication guidelines are thoroughly followed while developing the content:

  • The statutory material is obtained only from the authorized and reliable sources
  • All the latest developments in the judicial and legislative fields are covered
  • Prepare the analytical write-ups on current, controversial, and important issues to help the readers to understand the concept and its implications
  • Every content published by Taxmann is complete, accurate and lucid
  • All evidence-based statements are supported with proper reference to Section, Circular No., Notification No. or citations
  • The golden rules of grammar, style and consistency are thoroughly followed
  • Font and size that's easy to read and remain consistent across all imprint and digital publications are applied