2023 Supreme(Online)(NCLT) 643
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
WORKMEN OF VIKAS WSP LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
VIKAS WSP LTD. – Respondent
IA(I.B.C) - 759/2022
For the Petitioner:GAURAV BHARADAWJ
THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH, CHANDIGARH (Exercising powers of Adjudicating Authority under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016)
IA No 759/2022 In CP (IB) No.315/Chd/Hry/2019 (admitted)
In the matter of:
Bank of India .…Petitioner-Financial Creditor Versus Vikas WSP Limited .…Respondent-Corporate Debtor And in the matter of:-
IA No. 759/2022 Under Section 60(5) of the IBC, 2016 Workmen of Vikas WSP Limited Through their authorized representative Mr. Ranveer Singh s/o Surender Pal Singh, Ladhuwala, Gnganagar, Rajasthan-335025 …Applicant Vs.
1. Mr. Darshan Singh Anand, Resolution Professional Add: Stellar Insolvency Professionals LLP, Suir 10, 3rd Floor, 310, New Delhi House, 27 Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001
2. Vikas WSP Limited Through Resolution Professional Mr. Darshan Singh Anand, Add: Stellar Insolvency Professionals LLP, Suir 10, 3rd Floor, 310, New Delhi House, 27 Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001
3. Committee of Creditors Comprising of IANo759/2022 a) Bank of India b) Punjab National Bank c) Union Bank of India To be served through Resolution Professional Mr. Darshan Singh Anand.
4. Employees Provident Fund Organization Through Regional Provident Fund Commissioner EPFO Regional Office, Jodhpur, 130, Paschim Pal Vistar Yojana, Opp. Shankar Nagar, Jodhpur, Rajasthan- 342008 ….Respondents Order delivered on: 19.04.2023 Coram: Hon’ble Mr Harnam Singh Thakur, Member (Judicial)
Hon’ble Mr Subrata Kumar Dash, Member (Technical)
Present : Mr. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for the applicant in IA No. 759/2022 Mr. GS Sarin, PCS for the Resolution Professional.
Mr. Darshan Singh Anand, RP in person.
Per: Harnam Singh Thakur, Member (Judicial)
ORDER
IA No. 759/2022
1. The present application is filed by 520 Workmen of Vikas WSP Limited through their Authorized Representative Mr. Ranveer Singh (hereinafter referred to as the applicant); against Mr. Darshan Singh Anand, Resolution Professional of Vikas WSP Limited (herein referred to as Resolution Professional/Respondent No. 1 and 2) and Committee of Creditors (Respondent No. 3) and Employees Provident Fund Organisation (Respondent No. 4) under Section 60(5) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
IANo759/2022
2. It is prayed by the applicant to direct the Resolution Professional to accept and admit the claims of applicant i.e. for Rs. 57,43,51,846/- excluding the PF Claims and to direct the RP to reformulate the claim/ liability of the Corporate Debtor before inviting any resolution plan and to grant interim stay on insolvency proceedings and to grant any relief which the Court may deem fit.
3. The brief facts as submitted in the application are that:-
i. The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process has been initiated against the Corporate Debtor on 02.02.2022. The workmen, 520 in number have filed their claims through their Authorized Representative vide Form E dated 16.02.2022 which was duly delivered within the stipulated time to the Interim Resolution Professional.
ii. After submission of the claim the Resolution Professional has instructed the applicant to submit a fresh/ revised Form E and in terms of the said request revised calculation sheet dated 25.03.2022 excluding the calculation of Provident Fund has been submitted to IRP which is attached as Annexure A4 of the application.
iii. The Resolution Professional has rejected a large part of the claim submitted by the workmen and the intimation for the rejection/ non-admittance of the claim is attached as Annexure A5 of the application.
iv. It is averred that the Resolution Professional has divided the claims into 3 categories i.e. ‘admitted’, ‘contingent claim’ and ‘not-admitted claim’. It is mentioned by the Resolution Professional that ‘bonus and dharna period wages being part of ongoing litigation have been considered as IANo759/2022 contingent claim due to the amounts being subjudice’ and the another claim has been rejected stating that the gratuity is not payable and the interest on