JUDGMENT R.S. Patil, J.— The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 433(e) and (f) and Section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, seeking for appointment of a liquidator for the respondent-company and an order for winding up of the company. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was working as a Deputy Manager (Marketing) under the respondent-company. He submitted his resignation on August 20, 2007, whereupon he was relieved from service. However, in spite of relieving him from service, the respondent-company did not settle his terminal dues. He moved the respondent-company for settling the terminal dues. According to the petitioner, terminal benefits dues are in the range of Rs. 4,71,201. The petitioner wrote a letter dated September 23, 2007, vide annexure D calling upon the respondent-company to settle the dues. This letter was replied by the respondent-company on September 28, 2007, vide annexure E. Later on, several communications were exchanged between the petitioner and the respondent-company. Ultimately, the petitioner got issued a legal notice dated December 5, 2007, vide annexure H. This was replied by the respondent-company on December 12, 2007, vide annexure J admitting that they were liable to pay only Rs. 1,85,000 to the petitioner. They stated that this amount will be paid by them without prejudice to their rights and contentions. The petitioner was called upon to contact the respondent-company for payment of the amount. Thereafter, even though the petitioner approached the respondent-company, the amount was not paid. 3. The petitioner got issued another legal notice dated December 17, 2007, vide annexure K. The same was replied by the respondent-company on January 2, 2008, vide annexure L, wherein the company worked out the details of the amount payable under different heads to the tune of Rs. 2,06,773. Thereupon, the petitioner issued another notice dated January 28, 2008, vide annexure M requesting the company to issue the cheque or demand draft for the admitted amount. The respondent-company issued a letter dated April 1, 2008, vide annexure N along with a cheque for an amount of Rs. 19,408 to the petitioner alleging acts of misconduct amounting to moral turpitude which entitled the company to forfeit the amount payable towards gratuity. The respondent-company issued a letter dated April 1, 2008, vide annexure N along with a cheque for an amount of Rs. 19,408 to the petitioner alleging acts of misconduct amounting to moral turpitude which entitled the company to forfeit the amount payable towards gratuity. The misconduct alleged is with regard to the petitioner joining a competitor company and divulging the confidential information regarding the design, process, inspection, marketing techniques and other information related to the company's production and functions to the rival company. However, it is not in dispute that the respondent-company has paid Rs. 19,408 to the petitioner. Thus, the remaining amount, as admitted by the respondent-company as dues, payable towards terminal benefits come to Rs. 1,65,692. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the admission made by the respondent-company stating that it is due in a sum of Rs. 1,85,000 towards terminal benefits payable, the conduct of the respondent-company in withholding the payment entails the consequence as provided under the provisions of the Act and the petitioner is justified in initiating these proceedings. 5. Counsel for the respondent-company contends that though an admission with regard to the liability of the company in a sum of Rs. 1,85,000 is made, the said admission is not an unqualified admission inasmuch as the company had made it clear that the amount would be paid without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respondent-company. He further submits that as the company has initiated proceedings for misconduct amounting to moral turpitude and an order is passed on May 30, 2008, forfeiting the gratuity amount and further as the petitioner has himself initiated proceedings before the Controlling Officer for payment of the amount under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, the petitioner is not entitled to maintain this petition. He has contented that a suit is also pending wherein the company has sought for an injunction against the petitioner from joining the rival company and divulging the confidential information. 6. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and on careful perusal of the materials on record, I find that as per annexure J reply dated December 12, 2007, sent to the legal notice dated December 5, 2007, issued by the petitioner, the respondent-company has clearly admitted that the total terminal benefits payable to the petitioner were approximately in a sum of Rs. 1,85,000 and that the said amount will be paid to the petitioner without prejudice to their rights. In fact, the petitioner was called upon to contract the company to receive the said amount. As regards other amount which the petitioner is seeking under different heads, the company has disputed its liability and the matter is also pending before various forums including the Controlling Officer under the Payment of Gratuity Act. Whether the amount of Rs. 1,85,000 to be paid includes the gratuity amount is not clear. Be that as it may. Since this is an admitted sum, the respondent-company cannot avoid its liability only on the ground that the proceedings are pending before the competent authority. The petitioner who has undeniably worked under the respondent-company is entitled for the admitted amount to sustain himself. 7. As regards other amounts claimed by the petitioner, the same is disputed and the petitioner has to recover the same by resorting to other remedies available to him in law. The petition under Section 433 is not a remedy for such dues. Even as regards the admitted amount since the proceedings are pending before the Controlling Officer the payment of this amount will have to be subject to the result of the said proceedings. However, the petitioner cannot be made to wait indefinitely for the receipt of this amount. Therefore, the just and reasonable course is to direct the respondent-company to pay the admitted amount of Rs. 1,65,692 (Rs. 1,85,000 - Rs. 19,408) to the petitioner who shall receive it subject to the result of the proceedings, pending before the Controlling Officer. 8. In the light of the above, this company petition filed under Section 433(e) and (f) of the Companies Act, 1956, is disposed of in the following term The respondent-company is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,65,692 to the petitioner within four weeks from today. The petitioner shall receive this amount subject to the result of the proceedings pending before the Controlling Officer under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act. In case, the proceedings goes against the petitioner, it would be open to the respondent-company to recover this amount in accordance with law.