Dismissed

Lakshman Giri v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC17 Jul 2018WPC/2737/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, permanent employees of AML Steel & Power Limited challenged an NCLT order placing the company under IRB management under the I&B Code, 2016. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the NCLT was acting within the scope of the I&B Code and that employees should pursue remedies under the Industrial Disputes Act.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to work out remedies under the Industrial Disputes Act or other related labour laws.

Lakshman Giri Vs the State of Jharkhand — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No.2737 of 2018

¶2

¶3

Lakshman Giri.

¶4

Yogesh Kumar.

¶5

Md. Kamal.

¶6

Md. Sazzad.

¶7

Kismat Ansari.

¶8

Dawood Alam.

¶9

Imtiyaj Ali.

¶10

Mustak Ansari.

¶11

Zakir Hussain. 10. Sekh Mahboob. 11. Md. Irshad. 12. Mahbub Ali. .......... Petitioners.

¶12

-Versus-

¶13

The State of Jharkhand.

¶14

Secretary, Department of labour, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, Ranchi.

¶15

Deputy Labour Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur.

¶16

National Company Law Tribunal, Corporate Bhawan (UTI Building), 3^rd Floor, No.29, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-600001.

¶17

M/s. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited, Edelweiss House, Off. CST Road, Kalina, Mumbai.

¶18

M/s. AML Power and Steel Limited, No.9, 6^th Main Street, Gopalpuram, Chennai-600086.

¶19

Santanu T. Ray, AAA of Insolvency Professional LLP (Regn. No.IBBB/IPA-002/IP-N00360/2017-18/11055, E-10A, Kailash Colony, New Delhi-110048.

¶20

.......... Respondents.

¶21

¶22

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶23

----For the Petitioner : Mr. Dilip Kr. Chakraverty, Advocate For the State : A.C. to AAG ----- Order No.03 Date: 17.07.2018

¶24

At the request of learned counsel for the petitioners, the defect as pointed out by the office, is ignored.

¶25

The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondent authorities to ensure compliance of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before allowing closure of the undertaking as contemplated in the order dated 12^th March, 2018 passed by the respondent no.4-National Company Law Tribunal (in short ‘NCLT’), Division Bench, Chennai in CP/632/(IB)/2017 under Section 7 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (in short ‘I & B Code, 2016’).

¶26

-2-

¶27

The petitioners, who claim themselves as the permanent employees of the respondent no.6- M/s. AML Steel & Power Limited, have filed the present writ petition primarily for the reason that the NCLT vide order dated 12^th March, 2018 passed in CP/632/(IB)/2017 while adjudicating the matter under Section 7 of the I & B Code, 2016 has directed the IRP to take charge of the management of the said Company in terms with the provisions of the I & B Code, 2016. The NCLT has further directed to cause public announcement as prescribed in Section 15 of the I & B Code, 2016, calling for submission of claims in the prescribed manner.

¶28

The grievance of the petitioners is that since they are the permanent employees of M/s. AML Steel & Power Limited and their interests have not been protected, the NCLT should be directed to take care of the interest of the petitioners while proceeding under the provisions of I & B Code, 2016.

¶29

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the State of Jharkhand, it appears that the NCLT has been conducting the proceeding within the ambit and scope of the provisions of I & B Code, 2016 and thus no such direction as prayed by the petitioners can be issued.

¶30

The petitioners may work out their remedies as provided under the Industrial Disputes Act or other related labour laws.

¶31

The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶32

Sanjay/

¶33

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

Lakshman Giri v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakshman Giri v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms Mohan Timber Through Its Power Of Attorney Holder Umesh Jain Vs Union Of India Through Chairman Ministry Of Steel And Ors.

Ganga Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ms Maa Mundeshwari Enterprises Represented through One of Its Partner Lalit Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Deptt of Industry Mines and Geology

Rabindra Nath Paul Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nathun Prasad Shaw Alias Sri Nathun Alias Nathun Prasad Sao Vs State of Jharkhand

Ms Oriental Structural Engineers Pvt. Ltd. through Surjeet Singh Sethi Vs Ms Bharat Coking Coal Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director