ORAL JUDGMENT:-

1. The petitioner is challenging order passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner dated 6th January, 2003 directing respondent no.2-Bank to pay the amount lying in the petitioner’s account as the petitioner in arrears of an amount of Rs.60,08,210/- which is an amount due and payable as arrears of account of Provident Fund Dues/interest/cost. It is further stated therein that pursuant to the said order, Saving Bank Account No.3739 was frozen. Brief facts are as under:-

2. The petitioner was the Managing Director of Chetan Foundries Ltd., a public limited company situated at Solapur. The said company was not functioning since May 2001. The petitioner and the Directors approached the BIFR under the Sick Industries Company Act, 1985 and thereafter, the said company has been taken over by respondent no.5. Respondent no.5 had taken symbolic possession of the assets of the company and various attempts were made by the said respondent no.5 for sale of the assets of the company. Further, thereafter, Official Liquidator which was added as respondent no.6 in this writ petition is incharge of this company. The Official Liquidator has taken over the said company and liquidation proceedings have commenced.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner being the Managing Director of the company was not an employer within the meaning of Section 2-e of the said Act and as such, no recovery could be made from the personal property of the petitioner. It was submitted that the Saving Bank Account No.3739 belonging to the petitioner is his personal account in which there is a balance approximately of Rs.5,31,000/- out of which the petitioner had received an amount of Rs.5,21,106/- under the Provident Fund vide cheque No.719845 dated 9th January, 2003 which was issued by respondent no.1. It was, therefore, submitted that the said notice and the impugned order was liable to be quashed and set aside, that money recovered from the petitioner’s bank by the respondent should be returned to the petitioner herein. In support of the said submission, he relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Employees’ State Insurance Corporation vs. S.K. Aggarwal & Ors, reported in 1998 II CLR 518. He also relied on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Mansingh L. Bhakta vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors, reported in 1991 II CLR 586. He also relied on another judgment of this Court in the case of Employees State Insurance Corporation & Anr. vs. G.N. Mathur & Ors, reported in 1994 Maharashtra Law Journal, 855 Page 855.

4. Shri Karnik, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.1, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner being the Managing Director of the said company occupier of the said factor and as such would liable and was duty bound to make good the payment towards the arrears in respect of the employer’s contribution towards the provident fund. He relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Srikanta Datta Narasimharaja Wodiyar vs. Enforcement Officer, Mysore, reported in (1993) 3 SCC 217.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also invited my attention to another judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Garware Marine Industries & Others vs. Union of India & others, reported in 2005 (Supp.) Bom.C.R.677.

6. I have heard both the parties at length. It is an admitted position that so far as the company is concerned, it is under liquidation and Official Liquidator has been appointed. Respondent No.5 had taken symbolic possession of the assets of the company and has taken various steps for the purpose of selling the assets of the company. However, sale by public auction could not take place despite best efforts being taken by respondent no.5. Thereafter, respondent no.5 had made an attempt to sell the property by private treaty, however, permission was not granted by the Official Liquidator to sell b