The Supreme Court upholds a ruling protecting Jet Airways workers’ provident fund, gratuity, and pension dues from liquidation, while sidestepping broader legal issues affecting future insolvency cases.
The Supreme Court has left in place a ruling that shields former Jet Airways workers’ provident fund, gratuity and pension dues from the airline’s liquidation pool, while stopping short of settling the wider legal question for all future insolvency cases.
On August 31, a three-judge bench declined to disturb an order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal that favoured the workmen, even as it noted that the appeals raised arguable questions of law. The bench said those issues could be considered in a more suitable case later, meaning the Jet Airways relief stands for now but does not amount to a final ruling on the broader interpretation of the law, according to reporting by Supreme Today and Bar & Bench.
The dispute turns on Section 36(4)(a)(iii) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, which excludes sums due to workers from provident fund, pension fund and gratuity fund from the liquidation estate. The central disagreement is whether that protection depends on a separately identified fund existing on the liquidation commencement date, or whether the statutory entitlement itself is enough to keep the money out of the creditor waterfall. The workmen argued the provision is employee-focused, while lenders pushed for a more asset-based reading, saying unpaid liabilities should not automatically be carved out if no segregated corpus exists.
Mint reported on June 30 that the NCLAT rejected the State Bank of India’s appeal and held that Jet Airways employees’ provident fund and gratuity dues must be paid ahead of other claims in liquidation. The tribunal said the benefits were outside the liquidation estate and should not be lost simply because the company had not maintained a separate fund. Bar & Bench and Court Practice News likewise reported that the NCLAT treated provident fund, pension and gratuity as protected employee benefits rather than ordinary creditor claims.
The Supreme Court’s decision is narrower than the workers’ side may have hoped. It preserved the benefit of the NCLAT ruling in this case, but it did not authoritatively decide whether every unpaid PF or gratuity liability must always remain outside the liquidation estate where no segregated fund exists. That leaves room for future disputes, especially because lenders and the Solicitor General had argued for clarification on how Sections 36 and 53 of the code should be read together.
The case also fits into a developing line of insolvency law that has repeatedly treated social-security dues differently from commercial debt. Earlier decisions in State Bank of India v. Moser Baer Karamchari Union and Sunil Kumar Jain v. Sundaresh Bhatt recognised the special statutory status of provident fund, pension and gratuity dues. For employees and liquidators alike, the practical message is clear: these obligations need careful tracking long before insolvency becomes unavoidable.
Disclaimer: This article is intended to inform and educate, not to recommend or endorse any financial product, investment or strategy. Please consider your own financial circumstances and seek professional advice where appropriate before making financial decisions.
