SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(NCLAT) 979

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma (Member(Judicial)) , Mr. Jatindranath Swain (Member (Technical)) ,
M/s Lanco Infratech Employees Welfare Association – Appellant
Versus
Ms Anuradha Bisani Liqauidator – Respondent
153/CN/2024 COMPANY APPEAL(AT)(INS)



Mr. Mayank Pandey & Mr. Ashish Kumar Pandey, Advocates

Retention allowance must be established as a financial liability under applicable rules to be considered part of salary; mere proposals do not confer entitlement.

Headnote:(A) Companies Act, 2013 - Payment of retention allowance - Appellant Association claimed entitlement to retention allowance and salary for June 2017 as Operational Creditors - NCLT rejected the claim stating retention allowance does not form part of salary and lacks legal enforceability - The endorsement of Managing Director was merely a proposal, not a binding decision. (Paras 3-6)

(B) Retention Allowance - The court emphasized that retention allowance must be established as a financial liability under applicable rules to be considered part of salary - The Appellant failed to provide evidence supporting the claim of retention allowance as part of salary. (Paras 4-5)

(C) Interpretation of Salary - Salary is defined as total monthly emoluments excluding allowances unless they are established as legally binding - The court distinguished between salary and retention allowance, ruling that retention allowance is not salary unless proven otherwise. (Paras 5-9)

Facts of the case:
The Appellant Association, representing employees, claimed retention allowance and salary for June 2017, which was partially paid. The NCLT rejected the retention allowance claim based on lack of legal backing.

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the NCLT's decision, stating the retention allowance was not legally enforceable and did not constitute salary.

Issues: The main issue was whether the retention allowance constituted part of the salary and if the Appellant had a legal entitlement to it.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that retention allowance must be legally established as part of salary to be payable, and mere proposals do not confer entitlement.

Result: The appeal was dismissed.

JUDGMENT

(Hybrid Mode) [Per: Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, Member (Judicial)]

The instant company appeal, engages consideration of a very short question, as to, whether the members of the Appellant Association, which is a registered body in the name of M/s. Lanco Infratech Employees Welfare Association, who are 212 in number, are entitled to be paid with the “retention allowance” or not. They had raised a claim for, payment of the retention allowance, along with payment of salary for the month of June 2017, which they contend, that since they being an Operational Creditor, in the capacity of Operational Creditor were entitled to be paid with the salary for the month of June 2017, and the retention allowance too. It is not in controversy, and rather admitted too, that the salary for the month of June 2017 had been paid to the members of the Appellant Association. The only controversy which is now confined to be considered by this Appellate Tribunal is the payment and the entitlement for the payment of the remittance of the retention allowance.

2. In the company appeal in question, the challenge, which has been given, by the Appellant is, to the Impugned Order of 11.03.2024, which was passed by the NCLT Hyderabad bench, where it has rejected the IA No. 251/2022, as preferred in CP (IB) No. 111/7/HDB/2017, wherein the appellant in the representative capacity has sought for the following relief: -

(a) To direct the liquidator to pay the applicant's salary for the month of June 2017. (b) To direct the liquidator to pay the retention allowance which was committed by the Erstwhile Management of the Corporate Debtor (CD), being an incentive for the employees to continue with the employment of the Corporate Debtor.

3. The said claim of the payment of the retention allowance has been rejected, by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority, on the ground, that the internal note made by the officials of the Corporate Debtor, approving the payment of retention allowance cannot be taken as to be the basis, for the payment of the retention allowance, as retention allowance does not constitute or form part of the salary.

4. The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant has submitted, that the Ld. NCLT, has observed that merely a noting made by the Managing Director on an internal note, does not in itself confer a statutory right, to be paid with the retention allowance, and we find it to be logical too because any emolument, which is likely to be paid to the employee of an organization, since it would be having a financial implication on the employer , it has to be backed by a legal sanction, meaning it has to be an allowance or a wage or a salary, which is payable under the applicable rules, policies or standing orders of the employer Company. Since the Appellant, who on behalf of the employees was claiming for payment of the retention allowance, then it became all the more necessary, on part of the Appellant to establish, by law and by evidence, to sustain the said claim for grant of such claim. In fact, the Tribunal has observed that, there was nothing on the record, brought by the Appellant, to show that the retention allowance is part of salary which alone is payable during the CIRP period, for the reason being, that until and unless the said fact is established, under the law regarding its payability, the retention allowance cannot be treated as to be a salary or a part of the salary. The aforesaid contention finds support, from the fact that, the salary in its literal connotation, would mean a total monthly emolument and which is in exclusion of the allowances declared, exempted from attachment to the salary under the provisions of law.

5. The salary, under Law Lexicon of P. Ramanatha Aiyar 6 th Edition, has been described as, pay allowances or bonus or commission payable monthly or otherwise, or any legally sustainable monetary payment. What is relevant herein is, that an allowance will become a part of the salary only when, its entitlement falls due every mon

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top