JUDGMENT : - This company application by the applicant union seeks the following reliefs:"

(a) The Official Liquidator, High Court, Bombay being liquidator of M/s. Poysha Industrial Co.Ltd. (in liquidation) be directed by an order of this Hon'ble Court to re - adjudicate the claims of all the 121 employees with respect to following :(i) the statutory rate of interest on delayed payment of Gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, (ii) statutory bonus @ 8.33% for the period 1994 - 95,1995 - 96,1996 - 97 and 1997 - 98 as per Payment of Bonus Act, (iii) To make contribution of employer's share to the Provident Fund Authorities for the relevant period.

(b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Official Liquidator, High Court, Bombay to fully re - adjudicate the claims of the 21 employees (as per list annexed as Exhibit - E to Affidavit - in - Support hereof), (c) For ad interim relief in terms of prayers (a), (i), (ii) and (iii), (b) above."

2. At the outset, Ms. Buch appearing for the applicant contends that order in terms of prayer clause (b) needs to be passed straight way. She invites my attention to a statement which is annexed at Annexure - E to the affidavit - in - support of this Company Application. She invites my attention to the discrepancies at Sr. Nos.1, 2 and 11 and submits that a person joining at a later stage with lesser basic salary/wages, has been granted larger amount. At Sr. No.1. a person joining in 1970 and having basic wage more than those who have joined later has been denied a substantial sum.

3. Shri. Engineer appearing for the Official Liquidator, on the other hand, states that this is a statement which is placed before me by the applicant. It is not true that any discrepancies have occurred. He invites my attention to the statements in affidavit - in - reply and more particularly paras 16 to 18. However, in para 19 of this affidavit, this is what is stated:

"19. Official Liquidator submits that Counsel for workmen may be advised to submit sufficient documentary evidence showing the basic wage of workman at Serial No.1 namely Shri. Laxman S. Gaikwad was Rs.241.02 ps. so as to enable the Official Liquidator to re - adjudicate the claim."

4. In the light of the statement made in the company application which is supported by figures and in the light of contents of para 19 of the Official Liquidator's reply, in my view, interest of justice would be subserved if company application is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b). There is no serious dispute as far as this relief is concerned. In any event, it is desirable that the Official Liquidator readjudicates the claim. However, the ambit and scope of re - adjudication and admissibility of claims before the Official Liquidator is the real issue.

5. Ms. Buch is pressing prayer clause (a) and in that behalf she submits that the applicant union filed an affidavit dated 28th January, 2002 in proof of debts along with detailed statement of 121 employees of the company in winding - up. All details were furnished. The Official Liquidator held several meetings for the purpose of adjudication of the claim and representatives of the applicant remained present at the meetings. She then relies upon the Minutes and submits that the adjudication of claims in respect of Salary, Gratuity, Retrenchment Compensation, Leave Salary, Provident Fund Contribution, LTC, Restored D.A., Bonus and notice pay has been done. She submits that upon adjudication the Official Liquidator has disallowed the claim of interest in respect of gratuity though the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 provides for the same. Similarly, as far as Provident Fund contribution is concerned, the Liquidator has observed that the workers must take up the matter with the Provident Fund authorities.

6. She submits that as far as claim for bonus is concerned, it has been allowed only for a period of one year though the employees had claimed bonus for the years 1994 - 95

Click Here to Read the rest of this document