JUDGMENT 1. - Instant company application has been filed under rule 164 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, against the order dated May 31, 2007, passed by the official liquidator. 2. It has been alleged that the applicant was permanent employee of M/s. Saraf Synthetics (Raj.) Ltd., since October 1, 1984 and continued to discharge his duties till winding up order was passed on November 3, 1995, in Company Petition No. 10 of 1992. It has been further alleged that he was drawing salary of Rs. 1,500 with usual allowances at the time of passing of winding up order and accordingly he has prayed that outstanding dues, which has arbitrarily been rejected by the respondent vide order dated May 31, 2007, be paid to him. 3. One of the contentions advanced by counsel for the applicant is that while rejecting the claim of the present applicant no reasons have been assigned under order impugned dated May 31, 2007. However, notice was served upon the respondent of the present application and a detailed reply has been filed on behalf of the official liquidator wherein it has been averred that as per record available with the official liquidator it appears that the applicant was appointed somewhere in October, 1984 and one of his salary slip, placed on record, has also been taken note of. The respondent taking note of his first date of appointment, which came on record as October 1, 1984, paid outstanding dues/claim regarding gratuity, bonus and compensation under section 25FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for a sum of Rs. 9,218 and so far as the balance claim pleaded by the applicant is concerned, the same was rejected. The workmen who wants to claim his due wages and other dues has to fill up Form No. 67 provided under rule 152 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. The form filled up by the present applicant, copy of which has been placed on record as annexure A, is very vague and does not disclose as to how and on what basis a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs has been claimed towards his outstanding dues. There is no other documentary evidence except to show that he had been a workman since October 1, 1984 and this fact has been duly supported by the respondent while making payment of claim/outstanding dues of the present applicant. 4. 2 lakhs has been claimed towards his outstanding dues. There is no other documentary evidence except to show that he had been a workman since October 1, 1984 and this fact has been duly supported by the respondent while making payment of claim/outstanding dues of the present applicant. 4. So far as salary as pleaded by the applicant of Rs. 1,500 plus allowances on which he had worked is concerned, there is no documentary evidence available on record which could substantiate his claim with regard to salary paid to him. As per debt and claims statement of the present company in liquidation, a copy of which has been placed for perusal, at Serial No. 210. As per the available record of the respondent of the company in liquidation, after due assessment of his outstanding, a sum of Rs. 9,218 has been paid. 5. The submission made by counsel that the order rejecting his claim is a non-speaking order without assigning reasons is unjustified. Suffice it to say that after the notice being served, a detailed reply has been filed by the respondent which is duly supported by the relevant material which has been taken note of in regard to settling claim of the present applicant, in these circumstances it appears to this court that in the absence of reasons being assigned, prejudice has not been caused to the applicant and it remains an empty formality. 6. This court considers it appropriate to take note of the fact that the applicant might not be having sufficient record to substantiate his claim but at least initial burden was on him to prove the outstanding dues which he is claiming. However, in the present company application as per the available record which has been placed for consideration, what has been paid to him appears to be based on the record available with the official liquidator of the company in liquidation and so far as outstanding dues of Rs. 2 lakhs are concerned, in the absence of any prima facie material attached thereto, this claim cannot be said to be justified. 7. This court finds no substance in the present company application and the same stands rejected. *******