ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The present report has been filed by the Official Liquidator to consider the claim of the workers amounting to Rs.35,43,705/- and to seek further direction for distribution of the fund on adhoc basis subject to the ratio as may be worked out between the secured creditors and the workers. It appears that thereafter the workers' claim was re-verified by the Chartered Accountant and the net claim of the workers as found admissible by the C.A. is of Rs.32,24,097.89ps. 2. Heard Mr. Jani for the applicant, Mr. Panesar for respondent No.1 Bank and Mr. Bhatt for respondent No.2. 3. It appears that the order for winding up of the company in liquidation is passed on 12.09.1986. After the winding up order, Central Bank of India respondent No.1 Bank has filed the Suit No. 1 of 1988 on 10.03.1988. There is no order for express leave granted by this Court produced on record, however, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 bank is that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in case of Allahabad Bank v. Canara Bank & Anr. reported in (2000) 4 SCC 406 , the bank can file the suit and the leave of the Company Court is not required. Therefore, even if the said contention is considered for the maintainability of the suit at this stage, the fact remains that the suit has been filed after the order of winding up of the company in liquidation. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 bank has stated before the Court that the suit filed is for Rs.1,32,46,190/- with interest and the said suit is up till now not decreed and is pending. It is also an admitted position that pending the suit, the Debt Recovery Tribunal, by appointment of the Receiver, has sold the properties of the company in liquidation on 21.09.2001 and it has been stated that the amount realized was Rs.53 lacs. The money realized is lying with the respondent No.1 bank under the orders of D.R.T. and therefore the available fund is Rs.53 lacs plus interest as must have accrued on the said amount. 4. The contention on behalf of the Official Liquidator is that the workers' claim is required to be considered at pari passu with the claim of the secured creditor. 4. The contention on behalf of the Official Liquidator is that the workers' claim is required to be considered at pari passu with the claim of the secured creditor. Therefore, the amount which is lying with DRT be directed to be deposited with this Court and out of the said amount, the OL may be permitted to disburse the amount to the workers on pro-rata adhoc distribution so that the workers may be in a position to get their share. 5. Whereas on behalf of respondent No.1 bank it was submitted that as per the above referred decision of the Apex Court in case of Allahabad Bank (supra), the Company Court will have no jurisdiction for disbursement of the amount and such power would vest with the Recovery Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal as per Section 19(19) of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the 'RDB Act'). It was also submitted that the workers have lodged the claim and the Official Liquidator is also joined as party in the said proceedings and therefore such question of disbursement can be decided by the Recovery Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal and this Court may not exercise the powers under the Companies Act or may not direct for such deposit of the amount even for workers' claim with the Official Liquidator for distribution to the workers. 6. Respondent No.2 Union has supported the stand of the O.L. for realization of the workers' claim. 7. It is true that in case of Allahabad Bank (supra) the Apex Court did observe that in respect of the money realized under RDB Act the question of priorities amongst the Banks and Financial Institutions and other creditors be decided only by the Tribunal under RDB Act in accordance with Section 19(19) read with Section 529-A of the Companies Act and in no other manner. It has also been observed that no leave of the Company Court is required for initiating or continuing the proceedings under the RDB Act, 1993. However, the pertinent aspect is that in the said decision the Apex Court considered the question of requirement for a leave of the Company Court for proceedings under RDB Act by any financial institution. It has also been observed that no leave of the Company Court is required for initiating or continuing the proceedings under the RDB Act, 1993. However, the pertinent aspect is that in the said decision the Apex Court considered the question of requirement for a leave of the Company Court for proceedings under RDB Act by any financial institution. Further, the Apex Court observed that in view of the express provision under Section 19(19) of RDB Act, which has been introduced by Ordinance 1 of 2000, the question of distribution can be considered by the Recovery Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal as per Section 529-A of the Companies Act. 8. There are three distinguishing circumstances in the present case; one is that the winding up order was already passed of the company in liquidation and the suit has been filed thereafter. Even if it is considered that no leave of the Company Court was required for filing of the suit in the year 1988 after the order of winding up in view of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court in case of Allahabad Bank (supra) then also the second distinguishing circumstance is that in the year 1988 when the suit came to be filed and the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under RDB Act was invoked, Section 19(19) was not on the statute. Merely because the property is sold by appointment of the receiver at the later stage i.e. on 21.09.2001 after the insertion of Section 19(19) of the RDB Act, it can hardly be contended that the powers could be exercised by the Recovery Officer of DRT under RDB Act for disbursement on the basis of the position as prevailing in the year 1988 i.e. on the date on which the suit was instituted. In any case the third pertinent aspect is that Section 19(19) of the RDB Act, which has been pressed into service by the learned counsel for respondent No.1 bank reads as under: Where a certificate of recovery is issued against a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) the Tribunal may order the sale proceeds of such company to be distributed among its secured creditors in accordance with the provisions of Section 529A of the Companies Act, 1956 and to pay the surplus, if any, to the company. 9. 9. The aforesaid Section provides in a case where the certificate of recovery is issued against the company, the Tribunal may order for distribution of the sale proceeds. Therefore, the basic requirement for application of Section is that there must be the certificate of recovery against the company. It is an admitted position that the suit is pending even as on today and no decree or award has been passed and consequently no certificate of recovery has been issued against the company. Under these circumstances, in absence of the certificate of recovery against the company, the Tribunal or the concerned officer of the Tribunal will have no power to distribute the amount as per Section 19(19) of the RDB Act. Therefore, even if the observations made by the Apex Court in Allahabad Bank (supra) are considered, the jurisdiction under Section 19(19) of the Tribunal for distribution of the amount of sale proceeds would not be available for disbursement under Section 529-A of the Companies Act. Therefore, merely because the workers have made certain claim in the proceedings before the Tribunal or that the Official Liquidator is representing the company in liquidation for defending the suit would not be a ground to reject the report submitted by Official Liquidator for seeking directions for disbursement to the workers' claim. 10. It also deserves to be recorded that the peculiar circumstance in the present case is that the suit has been filed by financial institution in capacity as the secured creditor wherein the claim is made including the claim after the winding up order has been passed on 12.09.1986. The amount as might have accrued after the date of winding up is required to be excluded for the purpose of considering the claim of respondent No.1 bank as the secured creditor for calculating the amount under Section 529-A of the Act. Further, it is not a case where the property is sold by the Tribunal under RDB Act after the suit was decreed or the certificate was issued but in the case where pending the suit, by appointment of receiver, the sale has taken place of the properties of the company and the money is realized. Further, it is not a case where the property is sold by the Tribunal under RDB Act after the suit was decreed or the certificate was issued but in the case where pending the suit, by appointment of receiver, the sale has taken place of the properties of the company and the money is realized. The sale has taken place as back as in the year 2001 and though the money has realized as back as in the year 2001, the respondent No.1 bank, may not be in a precarious position since the money may be lying with the respondent No.1 bank itself. But, so far as the workers are concerned, they have not been able to realize their claim for a period of about 23 years even after the company is ordered to be wound up. If OL or workers in absence of the recovery certificate of Tribunal cannot seek disbursement by invoking power of the Tribunal under Section 19(19) of the RDB Act. The Company Court, which otherwise has also to take care of the interest of the workers under Section 529-A of the Act, can exercise the powers at least to the extent of getting the custody of the amount of the share of the workers and the disbursement to the workers and so far as the claim of secured creditor, which is the subject matter of the suit is concerned, the amount may be retained by the Tribunal under RDB Act. It appears to the Court that in order to give effect to the real spirit of the provisions of Section 529-A of the Companies Act by balancing the rights of the secured creditors as well as of the workers, it would be just and proper to direct the Tribunal to deposit the amount which may fall due as the share of the workers under Section 529-A of the Act. therefore the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 bank to that extent does not deserve to be accepted. 11. As such the amount claimed by respondent No.1 bank in the suit on 10.03.1988 is Rs.1,32,46,190/- and admittedly the said amount is calculated for the period later to the date of winding up which is on 12.09.1986. therefore the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 bank to that extent does not deserve to be accepted. 11. As such the amount claimed by respondent No.1 bank in the suit on 10.03.1988 is Rs.1,32,46,190/- and admittedly the said amount is calculated for the period later to the date of winding up which is on 12.09.1986. In any case for the purpose of calculation under Section 529-A of the Act being share of the secured creditor the amount would not exceed Rs.1,32,46,190/- since the date of winding up is prior to the claim made. Therefore, for the purpose of calculation, at the most, the claim of respondent No.1 bank for all purpose as secured creditor, would not exceed Rs.1.32 crore. Of course the aforesaid observations are without prejudice to the contentions of the company in liquidation in the pending suit before the Tribunal. The workers' claim as observed earlier is assessed by the C.A. and is Rs.32,24,097.89ps., so roughly can be said as Rs.33 lacs. If the claim of secured creditor is calculated as Rs.1.32 crore and the claim of the workers is calculated as 0.33 crore, the ratio for disbursement under Section 529-A would be 80% for secured creditor and 20% for workers' claim. The fund available as observed earlier is Rs.53 lacs plus interest as must have accrued for the period of about 8 years. It has been stated that the respondent No.2 bank may have the claim for the expenses incurred for sale of the property etc. Under these circumstances, even if the minimum amount of Rs.50 lacs is considered as made available for distribution under Section 529-A of the Act, the workers would be entitled to the share of Rs.10 lacs for pro-rata distribution. 12. Hence, the following order: 1. The amount of Rs.10 lacs from the available fund in the proceedings of Suit No.1 of 1988 pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, shall be deposited with the Official Liquidator. Official Liquidator shall place the copy of the order before the Tribunal for appropriate compliance. The aforesaid process of depositing the amount of Rs.10 lacs shall be completed within the period of four weeks from the date of production of the order before the Tribunal by the Official Liquidator. 2. Official Liquidator shall place the copy of the order before the Tribunal for appropriate compliance. The aforesaid process of depositing the amount of Rs.10 lacs shall be completed within the period of four weeks from the date of production of the order before the Tribunal by the Official Liquidator. 2. After the amount of Rs.10 lacs is deposited with the Official Liquidator, Official Liquidator shall disburse the amount to the workers at pro-rate proportionate basis by A/c. Payee Cheque or by crediting the amount in the bank account of concerned worker through electronic mode. The said process shall be completed within six weeks thereafter. 3. The amount of Rs.43 lacs plus interest shall remain with the Tribunal subject to final order that may be passed by the Tribunal in the suit. However, if the suit is decreed and the recovery certificate is issued, any surplus amount is available towards workers' claim as per Section 529-A, the same shall also be distributed accordingly by the Tribunal and in the event there is failure, Official Liquidator shall be at the liberty to move appropriate application before the appropriate forum. 4. Official Liquidator shall be at the liberty to make the payment of the bill of Chartered Accountant of Rs.6112/-. 13. Official Liquidator's Report disposed of accordingly.