AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH v. Official Liquidator & Anr.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate Versus Official Liquidator & Anr. Respondents through Mr. Nitin Jain, Advocate. Mr. R.S.Bhatia, Advocate. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] This appeal at the instance of Loh Udyog Mazdoor Sangh – a registered Trade Union, is directed against the order dated
16.11.2010 passed by the Official Liquidator on the basis of report of the Chartered Accountant, whereby claims of the workmen of the Company-in-Liquidation have been rejected. The impugned order reveals that by the Official Liquidator has decided the matter solely as per the report of the Chartered Accountant. This Court in CA No. 473 of 2010 [D.H.Woodhead Ltd. v State Bank of India & Ors. Vide order dated 20.09.2012 has held that the statutory claim of the workmen arising under various social welfare legislations, like, the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Payment of Minimum Wages Act, 1936, the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 etc. need to be determined by an authority possessing fair legal acumen and expertise. The Chartered Accountants are experts in their own subject and would be unfair to expect them to appreciate the implications of these Statutes. In the case in hand also, the primary question that arises for consideration is whether the 'employees' represented by the appellant Union are 'workmen' within the meaning of Section 2[s] of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Such a question can not understandably be decided by a Chartered Accountant. For the reasons already assigned in D.H.Woodhead's case [supra], the appeal is allowed to the extent that the impugned order dated 16.11.2010 is set aside and the Committee comprising [i] Shri Parveen Gupta and [ii] Shri Divya Sarup, Advocates and [iii] the Chartered Accountant [from the approved panels of the Official Liquidator] is appointed to determine the claims of the workmen after giving them an opportunity of hearing in representative capacity. An appropriate speaking order determining the Statutes of the employees and consequential claim, if any, admissible to them shall be passed as early as possible but not later than eight weeks. Since the claims of more than hundred employees are required to be settled, Sarv Shri Parveen Gupta and Divya Sarup, Advocates shall be paid a sum of `20,000/- each as honorarium from the Common Pool Fund Account. Disposed of. Dasti. October 11, 2012. dinesh ( SURYA KANT ) JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; Payment of Minimum Wages Act, 1936; Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 11 Oct 2012. The bench was SURYA KANT.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.