The court clarified the jurisdiction of the Company Court under Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956, and the role of the Official Liquidator in adjudicating workers' claims after the winding up of the company.

1. These applications are filed by the Workers' Union of the company-in-liquidation, seeking leave under Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 (i) to proceed with the claim petition filed on the file of the Labour Court in Kozhikode; and (ii) to proceed with the claim petition before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

2. I have heard Mr.Vineet Subramani, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.Arvind Shukla, learned Official Liquidator.

3. The company M/s.SILCAL METTALURGIC LIMITED, was ordered to be wound up by this Court, by an order dated 24.11.2006, in a company petition C.P.No.141 of 1999. In other words, the main company petition was filed 14 years ago and the order of winding up was passed on 24.11.2006.

4. It appears that the Workers' Union raised an Industrial Dispute regarding their nonemployment, contending that the industry had more than 100 workmen on the relevant date and that without following the mandatory requirements under Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, it was closed down. It was their further contention that from 18.10.2001, the workers were denied employment and that in a claim petition filed before the Labour Court, the management conceded the factum of closure and agreed to pay interim relief at the rate of Rs.1,000/-per month to each worker till the factory gets reopened. The undertaking of the management to pay the interim relief from 6.9.2002 to 31.3.2006 was taken on record and an order was passed by the Labour Court in the claim petition. Subsequently, another claim petition was filed on 12.9.2008. During the pendency of the said claim petition, the Government of Kerala referred for adjudication, the dispute relating to non-employment, to the Industrial Tribunal under G.O.(Rt) No.1216 of 2009 dated 18.8.2009. The Industrial Tribunal passed an award in I.D.No.50 of 2009 dated 23.1.2012, holding the denial of employment to the workers with effect from 18.10.2001 as unjustified and declaring that the workers should be deemed to have continued in service till the date of the award and that they should be paid closure compensation for the entire service till that date.

5. It is pertinent to point out that the Industrial Dispute was contested by the management, by examining the Managing Director and also producing documents.

6. After the award of the Labour Court, the workers appear to have filed a claim petition for computation under Section 33-C(2) of the Act, in C.P.No.11 of 2012 before the Labour Court, Kozhikode. They have also filed a separate petition before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. At that stage, the Workers' Union came to know that the company was already ordered to be wound up. Therefore, they have come up with the above two applications, seeking leave to proceed with the claim petition before the Labour Court and also to proceed with the petition before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act.

7. Mr.Arvind Shukla, learned Official Liquidator opposes the above application on the short ground that after this Court passed an order for winding up the company on 24.11.2006, the very reference of the dispute by the Government to the Industrial Tribunal on 18.8.2009 and the award passed on 23.1.2012 are without jurisdiction. The workers ought to have filed a claim petition before the Official Liquidator and they are entitled to do so even now. The learned Official Liquidator states that whatever is due to the workers, would be settled in accordance with Section 529-A, after adjudication of the claims.

8. In response to the above objection of the learned Official Liquidator, it is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the workers were not aware of the order of winding up. The management did not bring it to the notice of the Industrial Tribunal that there was an order of winding up. On the contrary, the case was contested by the management before the Indust