Joint filing by operational creditors under IBC?

Of the two type of creditor filings possible under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016, there is an express provision for allowing joint filing by financial creditors only. Operational creditors have not been given the right of joint or representative filing. The NCLAT in a recent ruling, however, has set aside an NCLT ruling for rejecting an operational creditor filing done in a representative capacity..Tayo Rolls, a subsidiary of Tata Steels, has been under financial distress for more than 2 years now. It had filed before the BIFR under provisions of the now repealed SICA. Before a final order could be passed, however, the SICA Repeal Act was enacted and all cases before the BIFR and AAIFR stood abated. The SICA Repeal Act also granted a 180 day period for such companies to make reference to the NCLT under Section 10 of the IBC. While Tayo Rolls did make a reference under Section 10 to the NCLT, it was after the 180 days and hence its application was rejected..The next application which followed was filed by Suresh Narayan Singh under Section 9 of the IBC, apparently as a second attempt by the company itself to initiate insolvency. The issue with the filing, as observed by the NCLT, was to do with the fact that the applicant himself was not a creditor to Tayo Rolls, but was an appointed representative for 284 workers who were not paid their wages. The NCLT observed,.“Shri Suresh Narayan Singh who has filed this petition has not been assigned or transferred operational debt of other workers, on whose behalf this petition has been filed. Therefore he cannot be considered as an operational creditor.”.This is further substantiated by the drafting of Section 7 of the IBC which allows an application to be filed by, “A financial creditor either by itself or jointly with other financial creditors, or any other person on behalf of the financial creditor”..Note that the “any other person on behalf of the financial creditor” was inserted the recent IBC Ordinance. Whereas neither Section 8, which requires sending of demand notice, nor does Section 9, which allows an application to be filed subsequently permit such joint or representative filing. Prima facie, this indicates a deliberate attempt to refrain joint or representative filings in the case of operational creditors. For this reason, the NCLT declined to entertain a filing.The NCLAT, however, has recently taken a different view. The NCLAT has held that given the total amount of money owed to each workman individually exceeds Rs. 1 lakh, each filing would amount to a valid insolvency application. Accordingly, the NCLAT remanded the case back to NCLT for admission. Although a mere technicality, it appears that the view taken by the NCLAT ignored the fact the filing continues to be made by a person not authorized under the law to do so..Advocates A.K Shrivastava and Kumar Sumit appeared for the operational creditor, Suresh Naryan Singh whereas Senior Advocates Arun Kathpalia and Rajiv Ranjan appeared for Tayo Rolls..(Read the NCLAT judgment)