Case against director of a company directly in high court feasible or not in law

skg (Querist) 25 March 2012 This query is : Resolved
Dear experts

Three years ago i.e. in year 2008 a Company (transferor co.) having registered office at Delhi got merged into a big bombay

based/registered company (transferee co.) under a scheme of amalgamation approved by BIFR and accordingly employees of

Delhi co, become employees of Bombay based co..

In year 2011,an employee of Finance department of transferor company was terminated on grounds of surplusage and

reorganisation of his department and at the time of his f/f, certain dues ( above Rs. 3 lacs) for which he was entitled as per an

employee welfare scheme announced after amalgamation was not given to him by saying that this scheme was not for

employees of transferor company but only for employees of transferee..

My queries to experts are as follows:

1) Whether after amalgamation date ,employee of transferor company are not entitled to benefits given to employees of

transferee company under a declared employee welfare scheme?

2) Whether complaint to BIFR can be made on the grounds that my termination is due to the result of this amalgamation

and even dues are not paid and discrimination between employees of two companies have been done after amalgamation

and this amalgamation be reversed since transferee company has not implemented the scheme justifiably?

2) If he is eligible for his dues and also falls under workman category,can he file a legal case under IPC in High Court

directly against directors of company of Delhi or of Bombay for cheating the employee by not paying the dues as well as

terminating him from the job which they are now doing from Bombay office and not transferring him to finance department

at Bombay?

3) In which High Court ,Delhi or Bombay ,he has to file this cheating case against the directors so that result of case comes as

early as possible unlike the labour courts which took normally 5-8 years?

rgds

skg

Follow Query

Report Abuse

Raj Kumar Makkad (Expert) 25 March 2012
1. If the scheme was specifically made for the employees of transferee company and restricted to the transferor company then there is no scope to agitate.

2. The role of BIFR has ended on the day of amalgamation so there is no use to make complaint there rather you should initiate legal action against the company.

3. Both high courts have jurisdiction.

Guest (Expert) 29 March 2012
Depends upon the benefits having been declared before or after merger of the companies.

Liability of the past dues of the transferee company becomes the liability of the present company after merger.

BIFR's has no role in deciding cases of employer-employee relations.

Previous

Next

You need to be the querist or approved LAWyersclub expert to take part in this query .

Click here to login now

Similar Resolved Queries :

Ask Query
Unanswered Queries