Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3.3. Mr. Bhangde, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, in rebuttal, in respect of the decision in Fanendra Harakchand Munot (supra) by the NCLAT relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent, invites our attention to para 3 thereof, to contend that in the said case the resolution plan was approved and a claim for the EPF dues was made subsequent thereto, considering which, on account of WP 693 of 2022-J.odt the delay, the claim for the Employees Provident Fund (EPF) dues was dismissed, which is also the case in the present matter where the resolution plan has been approved on 22/07/2019 and there is no application by the EPF either before the resolution plan was finalized, for its dues or even thereafter, except for communication dated 10/10/2017 (page 38) by the EPF which claim was never verified on account of non-submission by the EPFO Department of any proof of such claim. He therefore, submits that the judgment in Fanendra Harakchand Munot (supra) by the NCLAT in fact supports the case of the petitioners.

10.8. The provident fund of an employee is a combination to two components. Employees Contribution, being that amount, which is deducted from the salary/wages payable to an employee, which WP 693 of 2022-J.odt deduction is made by the employer. The other component being the contribution to be made by the employer, generally known as the Employer's contribution. Both combined, constitute the provident fund of an employee. Under section 5(1) of the EPF Act, a fund is required to be established after framing of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, which is to be administered by the Board constituted under section 5A of the EPF Act. In terms of section 6 of the EPF Act, the contribution, which shall be paid by the employer to the Fund shall be 10% (or such other sum, as is prescribed) of the basic wages, dearness allowance and retaining allowance (if any) for the time being payable to each of the employees (whether employed by the employer directly or by or through a contractor), and the employees contribution shall be equal to the contribution payable by the employer in respect of him and may, if any employee so desires, be an amount exceeding 10 % (or such other sum, as is prescribed) of his basic wages, dearness allowance and retaining allowance (if any), subject to the condition that the employer shall not be under an obligation to pay any contribution over and above his contribution payable under sec.6, which can increase in terms of the proviso thereto. In case there is any dispute as to the applicability of the provisions of the EPF Act or the contribution of the employer, such a WP 693 of 2022-J.odt dispute is to be determined by the authorities as provided under section 7-A of the EPF Act, in the mode and manner as provided thereunder.
Section 7-B of the EPF Act provides for a review of the order passed under section 7-A. Section 7-B (5) of the EPF Act, provides for an appeal against an order passed under review as if the order passed under review were the original order passed by the Reviewing Authority under section 7A. Under section 7-I of the EPF Act, an appeal lies to the Tribunal as constituted under section 7-D of the EPF Act.
10.9. It is also necessary to consider, what is the intent and purpose of the EPF Act. This has been considered and spelt out in Maharashtra State Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Provident Fund Commr., (2009) 10 SCC 123 in the following words :

26. There cannot be any doubt, that what has been held in Ghanashyam Mishra (supra) is binding on us. What however is to be considered, is whether provident fund dues of an employee, including the employers contribution, can be said to be dues payable under any law for the time being in force and payable to the Central Government, WP 693 of 2022-J.odt any State Government or any Local Authority. If the employers contribution does not fall in this category then, it cannot be said that such employers contribution would amount to an 'operational debt', as defined in Sec.5(21) of the IB Code. In this context the use of the word 'and', between the expression 'payment of dues arising under law for the time being in force', and 'payable to the Central Government, any State Government or any Local Authority', assumes significance. There cannot be any doubt that payment of the employers provident contribution is on account of the statutory imposition arising under the EPF Act. It is however equally true that the same is not payable to the Central Government, any State Government or any Local Authority, but it is payable in the Fund established under sec.6 of the EPF Act, which is administered by the Board as constituted under the provisions of the EPF Act, which is an independent body. In that view of the matter, the payment of employers contribution of the EPF, cannot be construed to mean payment to the Central Government, any State Government or any Local Authority. If that be so, then such contribution, would not fall within the meaning of 'operational', debt', as defined in sec.5(21) and for this reason also would not be something which could be a claim which has to be included in the Resolution Plan, non inclusion of which WP 693 of 2022-J.odt would result in the liability being wiped out in terms of what has been held in Ghanashyam Mishra (supra). It is also necessary to note, that the question whether the provident fund of an employee could be one which could be included in the definition of 'assets owned by the corporate debtor' in terms of the explanation to Section 18 of the IB Code was never under consideration in Ghanshyam Mishra (supra).