2017 Supreme(Bom) 1738
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR
R.K. DESHPANDE, M.G. GIRATKAR, JJ.
Vibhu Drinks Private Limited - Petitioner
Versus
The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 2380 of 2015
Decided On : 23-11-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Shri B.C. Pal
For the Respondents: Shri S.D. Sirpurkar
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the liability to pay provident fund dues in the case of a transfer of establishment is determined by Section 17B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, and involuntary transfers or transfers under statutory provisions are not covered by the said provision.
Headnote:
Liability - Employees Provident Fund - Section 17B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 - [17B] - The court discussed the voluntary transfer made by the employer covered by Section 17B and highlighted that involuntary transfer or transfer under statutory provisions is not covered by the said provision. The judgment referenced a decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and emphasized that the liability to pay the provident fund dues is that of the Official Liquidator and not of the auction purchaser.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged show cause notices issued by the Employees Provident Fund Organisation to pay outstanding dues of provident fund against a company which had gone under liquidation. The petitioner had purchased the property from the Official Liquidator, and the question involved was whether the provisions of Section 17B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 were attracted in the present case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the liability to pay the provident fund dues was that of the Official Liquidator and not of the auction purchaser. It concluded that the show cause notices issued by the Employees Provident Fund Organisation were harassing the petitioner and quashed and set them aside, allowing the writ petition and imposing costs on the respondent.
Issues: The main issue was whether the provisions of Section 17B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 were attracted in the case, and whether the show cause notices issued by the Employees Provident Fund Organisation were valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 17B and the clauses of the conveyance deed, highlighting that the liability to pay the provident fund dues was that of the Official Liquidator and not of the auction purchaser.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the show cause notices were quashed and set aside. The respondent was ordered to pay costs to the petitioner.
R.K. Deshpande, J.
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties.
2. Challenge in this petition is to the show cause notices dated 12-1-2015, 12-5-2015 and 15-6-2015 issued by the Employees Provident Fund Organisation calling upon the petitioner to pay total dues of Rs. 17,76,828/- outstanding against M/s Niranjan Ayurved Bhavan Limited, Khairlanji, Tumsar, District Bhandara.
3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has purchased this property for total consideration of Rs. 50,00,000/- ( Rupees Fifty Lacs Only) as per the deed of conveyance dated 7-4-2006 executed by the Official Liquidator, High Court of Bombay, Bench at Nagpur appointed over M/s Niranjan Ayurved Bhavan Limited. It is the case of the respondent Employees Provident Fund Organisation that the provident fund dues of the employees of M/s Niranjan Ayurved Bhavan Limited (a company which has gone under liquidation) to the tune of Rs. 17,76,828/- are required to be recovered from the petitioner in terms of Section 17B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and therefore, show cause notices in question were issued.
4. In view of above, the question involved in this case is whether the provisions of Section 17B of the said Act is attracted in the present case or not.
5. Section 17B of the said Act being relevant is reproduced below.
17B. Liability in case of transfer of establishment. Where an employer, in relation to an establishment, transfers that establishment in whole or in part, by sale, gift, lease or licence or in any other manner whatsoever, the employer and the person to whom the establishment is so transferred shall jointly and severally be liable to pay the contribution and other sums due from the employer under any provision of this Act or the Scheme or [the [Pension] Scheme or the Insurance Scheme], as the case may be, in respect of the period up to the date of such transfer :
Provided that the liability of the transferee shall be limited to the value of the assets obtained by him by such transfer.]
What we find by reading the aforesaid provision is that it is the voluntary transfer made by the employer which is covered by the said provision. Involuntary transfer or the transfer under the statutory provisions is not covered by the said provision. The controversy is covered by the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court delivered on 15-7-2011 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 893 of 2011 (Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Tayal Energy Limited and others) cited before us by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. Clause (1) of the conveyance deed executed by the Official Liquidator in favour of the petitioner in respect of property in question being relevant is reproduced below.
1. In pursuance of the orders of the High Court dated 24th February, 2006 in Company Application No. 127/05 and in consideration of the sum of Rs. 50,00,000/( Rs. Fifty Lacs Only) paid by the Purchaser to the Vendor in the manner hereinafter set forth and covenants contained herein the VENDOR does hereby grant convey, transfer and assign by way of absolute sale to the Purchaser, title Schedule Property together with all common ways, easements, and appurtenances estate, right title, interest property together with all common ways, easements and appurtenances, estate, right, title, interest, property, claims and demands whatsoever there to belonging to the Schedule Property free from encumbrances attachments, charges and any other claims whatsoever and to have and to hold the same as absolute owner thereof as per Terms & Conditions – approved by Hon'ble High Court.
Clause (3) being also relevant, is reproduced below.
3. The VENDOR hereby agrees and undertakes to pay all such charges, taxes cess and dues upto the terms and conditions of bid approved by the Hon'ble High Court.
In terms of the aforesaid provision, the property is transferred to the petitioner free from all e