IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA COMPANY APPEAL NO. 2 OF 2010 DIAGO MOURA ... Appellant Versus OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF M/S. NATIONAL AUTO ACCESSORIES LTD ... Respondent Mr. M.S. Sonak, Advocate for the Appellant. None present for the Respondent. Coram:- S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date:- 18th March, 2011 P.C.: None appeared for Official Liquidator though it is reported that he is duly served. 2. The grievance of the appellant in this appeal is that he was an employee of the Company in Liquidation. It is stated that he worked with the Company in Liquidation till closure of its operation in June, 1997. There was a strike and later on lock out was declared by the Company in Liquidation. There was some settlement between the Management and the Union. The terms with regards to the dues of the workmen were settled on 09-07-1997 i.e. the date on which they were relieved from services. The claim amount is mentioned in the Annexure-B of the appeal and it is stated that the Liquidator informed the applicant that his claim has been rejected. He filed a Company Appeal. The matter came to be remitted back and once again impugned order has been passed rejecting the claim. 3. From the available record, it is clear that the Liquidator has not taken into account the contents of letter dated 30th August, 1994 and the claim petition. In the claim petition it has been clearly set out that the appellant was working with the Company in Liquidation from 10-05-1990. He has computed the claim for wages from 1st July, 1997 to 9th April, 2001. Leave encashment, gratuity and outstanding dues has been also set out. The Liquidator has rejected the claim on the basis of memorandum dated 9th April, 2001 determining the amount payable as Rs. 15,504.00. According to him, the balance claim cannot be accepted because the affidavit indicates that the wages and other benefits have been settled by memorandum of settlement. 4. On the merits, the learned Counsel Mr. Sonak appearing for the appellant has contended that the Liquidator has failed to apply his mind and indicate as to how the payment has been made. Moreover, the Liquidator should have been aware of consequences flowing from Section 25-M and 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. I see much substance in the submissions made by learned Counsel Mr. Sonak. Reliance is placed on order dated 17th September, 2010 passed in Company Appeal No. 8/2009. In identical circumstances, this court after adverting to the legal provisions and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal. 5. For identical reasons, I find that the appeal deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, appeal is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Official Liquidator for adjudicating the claim afresh on merits and in accordance with law. The Liquidator should not be influenced by any of the observations in his earlier report/order. The Liquidator should endeavor to decide the claim expeditiously and in any event within a period of four weeks from the date of the receipt of this order. S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. EV