This case involves an application filed by ex-employees of Lanco Infratech Limited, the Corporate Debtor, seeking compliance with a prior order (IA.No.96/2019 dated 2019-10-01) directing the Respondent/Liquidator to pay their gratuity dues with 10% interest. The Liquidator had appealed the original order, which was initially allowed by the NCLAT, but the Supreme Court subsequently set aside the NCLAT's order and restored the Tribunal's original order. The current application seeks implementation of the restored order and initiation of contempt proceedings for non-compliance.
The Corporate Debtor, Lanco Infratech Limited, is undergoing liquidation. Ex-employees of the Corporate Debtor filed an application seeking payment of their gratuity dues as per a prior order of the Tribunal (IA.No.96/2019 dated 2019-10-01). The Liquidator had initially appealed this order, but the Supreme Court restored the Tribunal's original order. The Liquidator contested the claims of certain employees, arguing that some had already been paid, some were ineligible due to insufficient service (less than five years), and others were only entitled to partial payment. The Liquidator also argued against the payment of interest on the delayed gratuity payments. The ex-employees argued that all 7 employees in question were eligible for gratuity and that the 'other
…Sign in to view the parties.
Tribunal orders the…
Supreme Court earmarks…
This case involves an application filed by ex-employees of Lanco Infratech Limited, the Corporate Debtor, seeking compliance with a prior order (IA.No.96/2019 dated 2019-10-01) directing the Respondent/Liquidator to pay their gratuity dues with 10% interest. The Liquidator had appealed the original order, which was initially allowed by the NCLAT, but the Supreme Court subsequently set aside the NCLAT's order and restored the Tribunal's original order. The current application seeks implementation of the restored order and initiation of contempt proceedings for non-compliance.
The Corporate Debtor, Lanco Infratech Limited, is undergoing liquidation. Ex-employees of the Corporate Debtor filed an application seeking payment of their gratuity dues as per a prior order of the Tribunal (IA.No.96/2019 dated 2019-10-01). The Liquidator had initially appealed this order, but the Supreme Court restored the Tribunal's original order. The Liquidator contested the claims of certain employees, arguing that some had already been paid, some were ineligible due to insufficient service (less than five years), and others were only entitled to partial payment. The Liquidator also argued against the payment of interest on the delayed gratuity payments. The ex-employees argued that all 7 employees in question were eligible for gratuity and that the 'other
…Tribunal orders the…
Supreme Court earmarks…