Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. On the same day i.e., 5.3.2001, the management of the Sugar Mill also executed promissory note for payment of Rs.40 crores with interest @ 15.50% with half yearly rests.

6. Though, the appellant has not given the details of the dues of provident fund payable by the employer, a reading of the document marked Ex. A (pages 119-122 of the SLP paper book) shows that the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Aurangabad (for short `the Assistant Commissioner') passed order dated 29.9.2003 under Section 7A of the Act whereby he held the employer liable to pay Rs.1,75,10,477/- towards EPF contributions, EPF administrative charges, EDLI contributions, EDLI Ins./administrative charges and directed it to pay the amount with interest @ 12% within 10 days. As the employer failed to comply with that order, the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and Recovery Officer, Employees' Provident Fund, Sub-Regional Office, Aurangabad (hereinafter referred to as `the Recovery Officer') issued warrant of attachment dated 11.3.2004 under Section 8B of the Act for recovery of Rs.3,85,21,734/- which included 12% interest payable in accordance with Rule 5 of the Second Schedule (Part I) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with Section 8G of the Act. The warrant of attachment was executed by the Enforcement Officer on 26.3.2004 by preparing an inventory of the sugar bags lying in the godowns of the Sugar Mill and affixing paper seals on the same.

"... Sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the EPF and MP Act has two facets. First, it declares that the amount due from the employer towards contribution under the EPF and MP Act shall be deemed to be the first charge on the assets of the establishment. Second, it also declares that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, such debt shall be paid in priority to all other debts. Both these provisions bring out the intention of Parliament to ensure the social benefit as contained in the legislation. There are other provisions in the Act rendering the amounts of provident fund immune from attachment of civil court's decree, which also indicate such intention of Parliament."

The Division Bench of the High Court then considered the argument that the non obstante clause contained in Section 46-B of the State Financial Corporations Act has overriding effect qua Section 11(2) of the Act and negatived the same by making the following observations:

"The contention of the first respondent based on the overriding effect of Section 46-B of the SFC Act has no substance in our judgment.
Undoubtedly, the intention of Parliament in enacting Section 46-B in the year 1956 was to ensure that a State Financial Corporation could quickly and effectively recover the amounts due by taking possession of the property of the defaulter instead of having resort to the cumbersome method of recovery through a court of law. While this was the law, Parliament amended Section 11 of the EPF and MP Act by specifically enacting sub-section (2) thereof, declaring that the amount due as contribution to the employees provident fund has first charge on the assets of the establishment and that, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, it shall be paid in priority against all other debts. In fact, the second facet of Section 11(2) of the EPF and MP Act goes one step further than what is provided in Section 46-B of the SFC Act. The reason for this is obvious. While the State Financial Corporation would have to be helped to recover the debts due to it from a defaulting debtor, the provident fund payable to workers is of greater moment, since it is a matter of terminal social security benefit made available by statute to the working class. Taking into consideration that the EPF and MP Act is a social benefit legislation, and the evil consequences of provident fund dues being defeated by prior claims of secured or unsecured creditors, the legislature took care to declare that irrespective of when a debt is created, the dues under the EPF and MP Act would always remain first charge and shall be paid first out of the assets of the establishment. We are also not impressed by the contention of the first respondent that upon usage of non obstante clause in Section 46-B of the SFC Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the EPF Act is of subsequent date. No doubt, both Section 46-B of the SFC Act and Section 11(2) of the EPF and MP Act declare their intent by usage of the non obstante clause. But, since Section 11(2) of the EPF and MP Act has been enacted later, we must ascribe to Parliament the intention to override the earlier legislation also. It is, therefore, clear that Section 11(2) of the EPF and MP Act overrides all provisions of other enactments including Section 46-B of the SFC Act."