( 1 ) THE petitioner is a public limited company and has invoked Article 226 of the constitution of India questioning the order of attachment in Notice No. AP/vp/recy/ 2814/2001/240, dated 5-7-2001 issued under Sections 8-B read with 8-G of the employees Provident Funds and miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short the EPF Act ) and seeking for a declaration that the order appointing a receiver for the petitioner s business in notice No. AP/vp/recy/2814/241, dated 5-7-2001 issued under Sections 8-B read with 8-G of the EPF Act as illegal and arbitrary.

( 2 ) THE factual matrix leading to filing of the present Writ Petition is set out hereunder: The petitioner-Company on account of various factors, which are not germane to the Writ Petition has run into financial problem whereby the net worth of the petitioner-Company has eroded substantially and the petitioner has been declared as a sick industrial company under the provisions of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (Act 1 of 1986) (for short SICA, 1986 ). The petitioner- company, under the provisions of the EPF act is liable to file monthly returns and also pay the Employees contributions. The petitioner-Company has been filing the monthly returns and has been contributing to the fund regularly. The petitioner company is liable to pay the Employees share of the contribution from November, 1992 to November, 2000. Hence the respondent authorities issued the aforementioned impugned proceedings of attachment, appointing a Receiver. Assailing the said proceedings, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner.

( 3 ) SRI C. Kodanda Ram, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-company has been declared as a Sick Industrial Company as defined under Section 3 (1 ) (o) of SICA, 1985 and hence, the petitioner-company is not liable to pay any amounts which are included in the scheme and that the respondents are not entitled to initiate any proceedings for any recovery. He places strong reliance on Section 22 of the SICA, 1985 and contends that it operates as a blanket bar for any recovery proceedings.

( 4 ) SRI R. N. Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent authorities submits that recovery of provident fund and other dues under the act does not come within the purview and scope of Section 22 (1) of the SICA, 1985. The learned Standing Counsel further submits that the respondent authority is not seeking recovery of entire amount Rs. 1,63,34,775. 85 ps. which is due. All that the respondents are seeking to recover is the share of the workers, i. e. , a sum of Rs. 72,96,915/- for the period from November, 1992 to November, 2000. The learned Counsel submits that the amount mentioned above relates to the default committed by the Writ Petitioner with regard to employees share of contribution which has been deducted from the salaries of the workers. In short it is his contention that the Writ Petitioner cannot claim immunity for paying the amount which was deducted and recovered out of the salaries of the workers. The learned counsel further submits that the scheme mandates that the employer shall make a deduction from the wages payable to the employee who is a member of the fund, equal to the contribution of the employee to the Fund every month. The employee s contribution together with the employer s contribution is required to be paid into the fund by the employer within the stipulated period. These amounts, whether by way of a contribution of the employee or the contribution of the employer, are monies, which belong to the employee, which being a total security scheme, the same cannot come within the ambit of Section 22 (1) of the SICA 1985.

( 5 ) HAVING regard to the rival submissions, the question that arises for consideration before this Court is whether the petitioner is entitled to question the recovery proceedings initiated by the respondent authorities.

( 6 ) BEFORE advertin