- (1.) Instant company application has been filed under Rule 164 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, against the order dated May 31, 2007, passed by the official liquidator.
(2.) It has been alleged that the applicant was permanent employee of M/s. Saraf Synthetics (Raj.) Ltd., since October 1, 1984 and continued to discharge his duties till winding up order was passed on November 3, 1995, in Company Petition No. 10 of 1992. It has been further alleged that he was drawing salary of Rs. 1,500 with usual allowances at the time of passing of winding up order and accordingly he has prayed that outstanding dues, which has arbitrarily been rejected by the Respondent vide order dated May 31, 2007, be paid to him.
(3.) One of the contentions advanced by counsel for the applicant is that while rejecting the claim of the present applicant no reasons have been assigned under order impugned dated May 31, 2007. However, notice was served upon the Respondent of the present application and a detailed reply has been filed on behalf of the official liquidator wherein it has been averred that as per record available with the official liquidator it appears that the applicant was appointed somewhere in October, 1984 and one of his salary slip, placed on record, has also been taken note of. The Respondent taking note of his first date of appointment, which came on record as October 1, 1984, paid outstanding dues/claim regarding gratuity, bonus and compensation under Section 25FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for a sum of Rs. 9,218 and so far as the balance claim pleaded by the applicant is concerned, the same was rejected. The workmen who wants to claim his due wages and other dues has to fill up Form No. 67 provided under Rule 152 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. The form filled up by the present applicant, copy of which has been placed on record as annexure A, is very vague and does not disclose as to how and on what basis a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs has been claimed towards his outstanding dues. There is no other documentary evidence except to show that he had been a workman since October 1, 1984 and this fact has been duly supported by the Respondent while making payment of claim/outstanding dues of the present applicant.;