Shyam Electronics Ltd. is engaged in the business of manufacturing and distributing of colour TVs. Anil joined the company as Vice President (Accounts and Taxation). He observed that the company was taking benefit of Inp
CS Professional · Resolution of Corporate Disputes, Non-Compliances & Remedies · PYQS · June 2023
Shyam Electronics Ltd. is engaged in the business of manufacturing and distributing of colour TVs. Anil joined the company as Vice President (Accounts and Taxation). He observed that the company was taking benefit of Input Tax Credit (ITC) by creating some dummy firms in the names of promoter directors. There is no supply of raw materials, but the invoices are raised by these firms, payments are made and the company is availing of the ITC in its GST Returns and claiming big amount of refund. He made a complaint to the Tribunal under section 213(b)(i) of the Companies Act, 2013, alleging that the business of the company was being conducted in a fraudulent and unlawful manner and sought investigation to be made. The Tribunal after satisfying with the application made by Anil, ordered that the affairs of the company ought to be investigated by an inspector appointed by the Central Government. During the course of the investigation, the Chief Executive Officer of the company terminated Anil on the ground of in-subordination and damaging the image of the company. Comment on the action of the company in terminating Anil during the course of the investigation.
Answer & Explanation:
Section 218 of the Companies Act, 2013 , provides for the Protection of Employees during Investigation. It states: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, if: (a) during the course of any investigation of the affairs and other matters of or relating to a company, other body corporate or person under Section 210, Section 212, Section 213 or Section 219 or of the membership and other matters of or relating to a company, or the ownership of shares in or debentures of a company or body corporate, or the affairs and other matters of or relating to a company, other body corporate or person, under Section 216; or (b) during the pendency of any proceeding against any person concerned in the conduct and management of the affairs of a company under Chapter XVI, such company, other body corporate or person proposes: (i) to discharge or suspend any employee; or (ii) to punish him, whether by dismissal, removal, reduction in rank or otherwise; or (iii) to change the terms of employment to his disadvantage, the company, other body corporate or person, as the case may be, shall obtain approval of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) of the action proposed against the employee. If the NCLT has any objection to the action proposed, it shall send by post notice thereof in writing to the company, other body corporate or person concerned. In the given case, Anil made a complaint alleging fraudulent and unlawful conduct, leading to an investigation ordered by the Tribunal. During this investigation, the company terminated Anil's services. Since the company has not obtained the approval of NCLT in accordance with Section 218, the action of the company in terminating Anil during the course of investigation is not valid . This provision is specifically designed to protect employees who bring to light malpractices within the company, preventing retaliatory actions during an ongoing investigation.
Topics: Investigation and Inspection
Related Questions in this Topic
- Sunidhi, ACS, was appointed as Asst. Vice President (Board Secretariat). Just after joining, she came to know that the C...
- The Registrar of Companies, Mumbai sent an order to M/s. LRM Container Services Ltd. that it would conduct investigation...
- Differentiate between Punishment for False Statement and Punishment for False Evidence under the Companies Act, 2013.
- Mr. P who was a Managing Director of XYZ Ltd, was terminated from the position of Managing Director by virtue of an orde...
- Amit Sinha, commonly known as Sethji, has been accused of certain offenses under the SEBI Act, 1992. SEBI directed him t...