1. These petitions are between same parties and arise out of recovery of arrears on account of Provident Fund dues. In Writ Petition No.1717 of 2005, the petitioner has challenged order of attachment dated 14.03.2005 & 04.06.2004 and pray for a direction to Central Board of Provident Fund to consider its application dated 09.09.2002 for waiver of damages in accordance with the BIFR order dated 25.07.2002 under Rehabilitation Scheme. National Textile Corporation (NTC) is the petitioner in this petition. Unit of NTC at Nagpur by name ‘Model Mills’ is petitioner in Writ Petition No.5440 of 2005. The challenge therein is to notice dated 15.04.2004 issued under Section 7A by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, order dated 05.10.2004 based upon it by the said Authority, and further order dated 06.09.2005 passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, upholding that order.

2. Basic facts up to sanction of BIFR are not in dispute in the present matters. The NTC is a Government of India Enterprise and its Maharashtra North Subsidiary is engaged in manufacture of Textile and Textile goods in northern region. Government of India nationalized 109 ailing Textile mills in Maharashtra under the Sick Textile Undertaking (Nationalization) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred as “the 1974 Act” for short). National Textile Corporation Limited, New Delhi was initially given responsibility of managing these 109 textile mills. However, later on 9 subsidiary companies were formed including the petitioner and mills/units were handed over to respective subsidiaries. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1717/2005 was having ownership, management and supervision over 18 textile mills out of which 13 were located in Mumbai and 5 in North Maharashtra. Model Mills at Nagpur is one such unit.

3. It is not in dispute that a Reference under Section 15[1] of the SICA came to be submitted on 17.05.1993. Petitioner was declared sick under section 3[1][o] of that Act and under section 17 [3], IDBI was appointed as operating agency. These proceedings were registered as BIFR Case No. 536/1992. On 25.07.2002 BIFR sanctioned rehabilitation scheme under section 18 of the 1974 Act. Said Rehabilitation Scheme also contained constitution of Asset Sale Committee for sale of assets with the unit mills. Out of total 18 mills, only 8 were found to be viable and Model Mills was in list of 10 un-viable mills. The viable mills were to be revived by modernization, renovation etc., by adopting various measures. Properties of unviable units were to be sold for such revival.

4. BIFR considered total cost of rehabilitation scheme, amount which can be fetched by sale of assets and amount to be raised by NTC through loans etc. Various financial institutions like Banks, Ministry of Textile, Government of India, CBDT, MSEB and Tata Electric Company as also promoters were requested to adopt various measures as suggested in the scheme and to cooperate in the implementation of the rehabilitation scheme. It also includes measures like bringing about settlement of Statutory dues under various Labour Laws including Provident Fund and ESI. As a part of said exercise, vide paragraph no.6.0 C[c][d][i] the PF and ESI dues were to be paid within two years and relevant clause – paragraph reads as under:

“Para 6.0 C[c][v][ix] To consider to waive the penalties and damages levied on PF/ESI dues. To consider to pay PF and ESI dues [after waiver damages and penalties] in 2 years, after sanction of the scheme by Board. The dues of unviable mills would be paid in the first year and the dues of viable mills would be paid in second year.”

5. The appropriate Government under Industrial Disputes Act on 01.06.2004 permitted closure of Model Mills and that order was implemented by notice issued on 05.06.2004. In the meanwhile Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, has started proceedings for recovery of contribution under Section 7A and damages under Section 14B of the Employees Provi