National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Dismisses Appeal of Ex-Employee Regarding Gratuity Claims. The court found that gratuity and leave encashment do not qualify as CIRP costs under Section 5(13) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Tribunals: National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Bench: NEW DELHI
  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involved an appeal by a former director of Duncans Industries Limited, challenging an order that dismissed his application for treating his claim for gratuity and leave encashment as part of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) costs. The appellant had served the corporate debtor for over 25 years and claimed dues amounting to ₹ 83,58,444, of which ₹ 44,16,729 was partially admitted. Following his superannuation, he sought payment of his statutory dues but faced delays. The Adjudicating Authority ruled that his claims could only be addressed under the approved Resolution Plan, which led to the appeal. The appellant argued that his statutory rights to gratuity should be prioritized and that the failure to maintain a gratuity fund should not affect his claims. Conversely, the resolution professional contended that such claims could not be classified as CIRP costs under Section 5(13) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and that the resolution plan provided for gratuity payments. The court analyzed the definition of CIRP costs and concluded that gratuity and leave encashment are terminal benefits, not expenses incurred during the insolvency process. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as lacking merit, with no costs awarded.

Headnote

A) Insolvency Law - Definition of CIRP Costs - Gratuity and Leave Encashment Claims - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 5(13) - The court held that gratuity and leave encashment do not qualify as CIRP costs as defined under the Code, emphasizing that such claims are terminal benefits and not expenses incurred by the resolution professional. The appeal was dismissed as the claims were misconceived and lacked legal merit (Paras 6-8).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the gratuity and encashable leave of an employee should be part of CIRP costs.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The appeal was dismissed as devoid of merits, with the court concluding that gratuity and leave encashment do not qualify as CIRP costs under Section 5(13) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Law Points

  • CIRP costs
  • statutory dues
  • gratuity
  • leave encashment
  • insolvency resolution process
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (NCLAT) (07) 53

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 72 of 2025

2026-07-17

Justice N. Seshasayee, Arun Baroka, Indevar Pandey

Mr. Rishav Banerjee, Mr. Supriyo Gole, Ms. Anoushka Dey, Ms. Aishwarya Awasthi, Mr. Joy Saha, Mr. Amit Kasera, Ms. Urmila

Subir Mukherjee

Ram Ratan Modi

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against the dismissal of a claim for gratuity and leave encashment as CIRP costs.

Remedy Sought

The appellant sought to have his gratuity and leave encashment treated as CIRP costs.

Filing Reason

The appellant filed the case due to non-payment of his statutory dues after superannuation.

Previous Decisions

The Adjudicating Authority had previously ruled that the appellant's claims could only be addressed under the approved Resolution Plan.

Issues

Whether gratuity and leave encashment should be classified as CIRP costs. Whether the appellant's claims were misconceived under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

Submissions/Arguments

The appellant argued for the prioritization of statutory dues and claimed that the failure to maintain a gratuity fund should not affect his rights. The respondent contended that gratuity and leave encashment do not qualify as CIRP costs and should be dealt with under the resolution plan.

Ratio Decidendi

Gratuity and leave encashment are terminal benefits and do not constitute expenses incurred during the insolvency resolution process, thus not qualifying as CIRP costs under Section 5(13) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Judgment Excerpts

The appellant herein was the former director of the corporate debtor, who now challenges an Order, dated 04.09.2024, dismissing his application. The court held that gratuity and leave encashment do not qualify as CIRP costs as defined under the Code.

Procedural History

The appellant filed I.A. No. 868 of 2021 for payment of gratuity and leave encashment, which was dismissed by the Adjudicating Authority on 04.10.2024, leading to the present appeal.

Acts & Sections

  • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: Section 5(13), Section 53
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Arbitration Petition Against Housing Society and Flat Owners for Lack of Arbitrable Dispute. Dispute over alleged oral agreement for redevelopment of building not covered by arbitration clause in share certificate.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Adjudicates Writ Petition Challenging Industrial Court's Order on Maintainability of ULP Complaint By Contract Workers. Contract Workers' ULP Complaint Against Principal Employer and Labour Officer Under MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 Examin...