Claim of workers employed through sub-contractor filed through sub-contractor as Operational Debt cannot be treated as workmen of Corporate Debtor | There is no difference in IBC between workers who are engaged by sub-contractor and workmen who are engaged directly by Corporate Debtor – Amit Kumar Pandey & Ors. v. Pardeep Kumar Sethi, RP (JMT Auto Ltd.) and Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi
Hon’ble NCLAT held that:
(i) Appellant who never submitted any claim before the Resolution Professional claiming to be workmen cannot be allowed to contend at this stage that they are workmen and they should be paid at par with the workmen of the Corporate Debtor for amount which was admitted in the CIRP by the Resolution Professional.
(ii) Section 53 itself provides different treatment in distribution of assets where workmen dues are dealt in Section 53(1)(b) and operational debt at much lower ladder.
(iii) A claim which was filed by operational creditor cannot be treated at par with claim of workmen.
(iv) When Resolution Plan differentiate between payment to the workmen as well as to the Operational Creditors, such distinction is in accordance with law and cannot be faulted.
(v) In the present Appeal, the claim which was filed through sub-contractor cannot be treated as workmen of the Corporate Debtor.
(vi) The submission which has been advanced by Counsel for the Appellant that due to the workers of sub-contractor being not aware of the CIRP could not file their claim cannot be considered at the stage when all claims have been collated and admitted and dealt with in the Resolution Plan.
The Appeal is dismissed.
