2002 (6) TMI 596 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Priority of Provident Fund dues over other debts.
2. Applicability of Section 46-B of the S.F.C. Act versus Section 11(2) of the E.P.F. & M.P. Act.
3. Validity of recovery notices and orders issued by the Recovery Officer.

Summary:

1. Priority of Provident Fund dues over other debts:
The core issue was whether the dues under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (E.P.F. & M.P. Act) have priority over other debts, including those secured by a mortgage. Section 11(2) of the E.P.F. & M.P. Act declares that any amount due from an employer towards Provident Fund contributions shall be deemed to be the first charge on the assets of the establishment and shall be paid in priority to all other debts, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law. The Court emphasized that this provision ensures the social security benefits for workers, giving Provident Fund dues a higher priority over other debts, including those secured by a mortgage.

2. Applicability of Section 46-B of the S.F.C. Act versus Section 11(2) of the E.P.F. & M.P. Act:
The first respondent Corporation argued that Section 46-B of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (S.F.C. Act) gives it an overriding effect over other laws due to its non obstante clause. However, the Court held that Section 11(2) of the E.P.F. & M.P. Act, being a subsequent enactment, overrides Section 46-B of the S.F.C. Act. The Court reasoned that the E.P.F. & M.P. Act, being a social benefit legislation, takes precedence to protect the terminal social security benefits of workers. The Court cited the Supreme Court's judgment in A.P. State Financial Corporation v. Official Liquidator, which held that subsequent legislation with a non obstante clause prevails over earlier laws.

3. Validity of recovery notices and orders issued by the Recovery Officer:
The Recovery Officer issued demand notices and orders attaching the assets of the company, including prohibiting the bank from transferring funds in the company's account. The first respondent Corporation challenged these notices and orders, which were initially quashed by the learned single Judge. However, the High Court set aside the single Judge's judgment, holding that the Recovery Officer was entitled to exercise his powers to recover Provident Fund dues. The Court revived the notices and orders, declaring them legal and justified, and directed that they be disposed of in accordance with the law.

Conclusion:
The High Court concluded that the dues under the E.P.F. & M.P. Act have higher priority over other debts, including those secured by a mortgage, and that Section 11(2) of the E.P.F. & M.P. Act overrides Section 46-B of the S.F.C. Act. The recovery notices and orders issued by the Recovery Officer were upheld as legal and justified.