JUDGMENT 1. - All the above applications are hereby disposed of by this common order. 2. In S.B. Company Petition No. 8/2000, an order was passed for appointment of Official Liquidator and to decide the Claim of employees. Shri N.C. Jain & Associates (CA firm) and Advocate Shri Sodani were appointed to adjudicate the Claims of the employees/workmen. The Official Liquidator submitted detailed report of Claims of the employees decided as per Rule 167 of the Companies (Court) Rules 1959. 3. In the report submitted on 26.04.2013, it is submitted that Advocate Shri Sodani and Chartered Accountant Shri N.C. Jain gave divergent opinions inasmuch as Shri Sodani admitted the amount to be paid to the workmen up to 23.02.2010, the date on which the order for winding up of the company was passed by this Court whereas Chartered Accountant Shri N.C. Jain adjudicated the Claims of the workmen on the basis of the record and held the employees/workmen are entitled for payment of Claim up to 22.02.2007, the date on which the Official Liquidator took possession of the company in compliance of the directions issued by this Court. 4. A list of Claims of the workmen/employees showing the amount of Claim adjudicated by Advocate Shri Sodani and amount adjudicated by Chartered Accountant Shri N.C. Jain has been enclosed with the report as Annex.-A for necessary orders by this Court in this company petition so as to settle the Claims by the Official Liquidator. 5. Learned counsel for the workmen submits that three different opinions with regard to the Claim of the workmen/employees emerged which are as follows : "(i) The Claim in respect of salary and wages, gratuity and Bonus has been calculated upto the date of taking over the charges of the assets of the Company by the Official Liquidator as per order of this Honble Court i.e. upto 22.02.2007 not upto the date of winding up order on 23.02.2010, as service rendered by the workmen are being stopped after taking over by Official Liquidator and admissible in the winding up u/s 529 of the Companies Act, 1956. (ii) The Claim of the workmen has been considered upto 22.02.2007 date of taking over or date of leaving the job/death whichever is earlier. In this regard the desired information/documents received from Collector, Bhilwara and Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Udaipur and said information has been used for Claim adjudication. (ii) The Claim of the workmen has been considered upto 22.02.2007 date of taking over or date of leaving the job/death whichever is earlier. In this regard the desired information/documents received from Collector, Bhilwara and Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Udaipur and said information has been used for Claim adjudication. (iii) The retrenchment compensation of workmen has been considered for 3 months of salary/wages u/s 25FFF of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 not as per section 25F of the said Act." 6. After perusing the entire record of the case, first of all, I am deciding the first discrepancy with regard to the date of the Claim. (I) The first discrepancy with regard to the date of the Claim is to be settled for the Claimant employees. According to the Chartered Accountant Shri N.C. Jain, the employees are entitled for their Claim up to 22.02.2007, the date on which the Official Liquidator took possession of the company in compliance of the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 11.01.2007 in Company Petition No. 8/2000 whereas Advocate Shri Sodani opined that the workmen/employees are entitled for their Claim up to 23.02.2010, the date on which the order for winding up of the company was passed. In my opinion, as per the provisions of consequences of winding up order as provided under Sections 444 to 447 there is provision under sub-section (3) of Section 445 in which it is provided that making of an order for winding up of a company it shall be duty of the petitioner in the winding up proceedings and of the company to file with the Registrar a certified copy of the order, within thirty days from the date of the making of the order; and, as per sub-section (3) such order shall be deemed to be notice of discharge to the officers and employees of the company, except when the business of the company is continued; meaning thereby, the consequence of the order of winding up of the company is that on that date officers and employees are required to accept the notice of discharge. Therefore, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that in view of sub-section (3) of Section 445 the discharge of the officers and employees is required to be treated on the date of winding up of the company. Therefore, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that in view of sub-section (3) of Section 445 the discharge of the officers and employees is required to be treated on the date of winding up of the company. Therefore, in my opinion, the employees whose Claims are settled by the Official Liquidator with the assistance of Advocate Shri Sodani and Chartered Accountant Shri N.C. Jain shall be paid up to the date of winding up of the company which is 23.02.2010. (II) With regard to the Claim of the workmen who left their job or died, it is submitted by the counsel for the employees that in compelling circumstances number of employees filed resignation or tendered applications for voluntary retirement, therefore, as regards cases of such resignation or voluntary retirement they shall be treated for the purpose of settlement of the Claim and they should be held entitled to Claim up to the date of winding up of the company. For the above argument learned counsel for the petitioner invited attention of the Court towards judgments of the Supreme Court reported in 1997(4) SCC 280 and 2003(1) SCC 701 and submits that resignation must be unconditional but, here, in this case, so many employees gave resignation or took voluntary retirement with conditions, therefore, the date of their Claim should be accepted as the date of winding up of the company while ignoring that they resigned or took voluntary retirement. I am of the opinion that it is a case of winding up of the company due to financial crisis and if any employee filed resignation or took voluntary retirement so as to join other employment such employee cannot be held entitled after filing application for resignation or voluntary retirement. Therefore, in my opinion, such employees are entitled to their respective Claim up to the date of acceptance of the application for resignation or voluntary retirement. In view of the above, the Official Liquidator is directed to calculate the Claim of those employees upto the date of filing application for resignation and acceptance of their voluntary retirement. (Ill) With regard to the retrenchment compensation, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that compensation is to be paid as per Section 25F of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 but the adjudicators wrongly held that retrenchment compensation shall be paid according to Section 25FFF of the Act of 1947. (Ill) With regard to the retrenchment compensation, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that compensation is to be paid as per Section 25F of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 but the adjudicators wrongly held that retrenchment compensation shall be paid according to Section 25FFF of the Act of 1947. Learned counsel for the petitioner specifically argued that as per Section 25.FFF if any industry is closed due to financial crisis, then, compensation is to be paid as per Section 25.F of the Industrial Disputes Act. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I have perused Section 25.FFF. In Section 25.FFF, it is provided that where an undertaking is closed down for any reason whatsoever every workman who has been in continuous service for not less than one year in that undertaking immediately before such closure shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), be entitled to notice and compensation in accordance with the provisions of Section 25F, as if the workman had been retrenched. Further, it is provided that where the undertaking is closed down on account of unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the employer, the compensation to be paid to the workman under clause (b) of Section 25.F, shall not exceed his average pay for three months. Under the proviso, there is explanation under which, it is provided that an undertaking which is closed own by reason merely of financial difficulties (including financial losses), or accumulation of undisposed stocks, or the expiry of the period of the lease or licence granted to it, or in case where the undertaking is engaged in mining operations, exhaustion of the minerals in the area in which such operations are carried on, shall not be deemed to be closed down on account of unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the employer within the meaning of the proviso to this sub-section; meaning thereby, it is abundantly clear that if any company is closed down due to financial difficulties, then, employees will be entitled for getting the retrenchment compensation as per Section 25.F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, in view of the language of Section 25.FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, I hold that the retrenchment compensation shall be calculated as per Section 25.F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and not as per Section 25.FFF of the Act. 7. Therefore, in view of the language of Section 25.FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, I hold that the retrenchment compensation shall be calculated as per Section 25.F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and not as per Section 25.FFF of the Act. 7. In view of above, the Official Liquidator is directed to calculate the Claim of ail the employees in the light of the aforesaid directions and, after calculation, the amounts shall be paid to individual employee within three months from the date of receiving certified copy of this order and before releasing the amount the employees are directed to give vacant possession of the quarters/premises of the liquidated firm which is in their respective occupation/possession. 8. With regard to the prayer of Shri Sodani, Advocate and Shri N.C. Jain Chartered Accountant for enhancement of their remuneration I deem it appropriate to allow Rs. 50,000/- each to both the adjudicators who assisted the Official Liquidator for settling the Claims of the employees. Consequently, it is directed that both of them shall be paid Rs. 50,000/- as remuneration while making adjustment of the amounts, if any, already paid to them. 9. With aforesaid directions all the four application's filed in S.B. Company/Petition No. 8/2000 are hereby disposed of.Application Disposed of as above. *******