The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the priority of payment of contributions over other debts under Section 11 of the EPF Act in relation to the Companies Act, and the applicability of Section 529-A of the Companies Act to the provident fund dues.

( 1 ) IN all the applications the prayer by the Employees Provident Fund Organization functioning under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "the EPF Act") is to direct the O. L. to realise the amount, which are mentioned in the separate application by different figures towards the statutory amount of provident fund of the workers. The priority claimed is above the secured creditors under Section 529-A of the Companies Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act")to or in any case under Section 529-A contending that it was the contribution deducted from the workers wages and not deposited with the Provident Fund Authority.

( 2 ) HEARD Ms. Hina Desai learned Counsel appearing for the applicant - Provident Fund Authority in all the applications and Mr. Yadav for O. L. upon the advance copy.

( 3 ) IN all fairness as such the Provident Fund Authority ought to have drawn attention of this Court by bringing on record the order passed by this Court dated 31. 08. 2005 in Company Application No. 195 of 2005 in case of Regional Provident Commissioner-I vs M. A. Kuvadia, O. L. and others, which is decided after the reference opined by the Division Bench of this Court on the very issues and the points which are raised in the present applications. The pertinent aspect is that in the said decision Regional Provident Commissioner-I, was also party. The present application is preferred by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner working in the Regional Provident Fund office, at Vadodara.

( 4 ) IT deserves to be recorded that all contentions which arise for consideration in the present applications as such are considered and covered by the said decision. This Court in the aforesaid decision in case of Regional Provident Commissioner-I (supra) observed at paragraph Nos. 7,8,9,10,11,12,13 and 14 as under:

"7. Section 11 of EPF Act reads as under: "11. Priority of payment of contributions over other debts:-[ (1)] [where any employer is adjudicated insolvent or, being a company, an order for for winding-up is made, the amount due- (a)from the employer in relation to [an establishment] to which any [scheme or the Insurance Scheme] applies in respect of any contribution payable to the Fund [or as the case may be, the Insurance Fund] damages recoverable under Sec. 14-B, accumulations required to be transferred under sub-section (2) of Sec. 15 or any charges payable by him under any other provision of this Act or of any provision of the [scheme or the Insurance Scheme]; or (b) from the employer in relation to an exempted [establishment] in respect of any contribution to the [the provident fund or any insurance fund] (in so far as it relates to exempted employees), under the rules of [the provident fund or any insurance fund], [any contribution payable by him towards the [pension] Fund under sub-section (6) of Sec. 17] damages recoverable under Sec. 14-B or any charges payable by him to the appropriate Government under any provision of this Act or under any of the conditions specified under Sec. 17, shall, where the liability therefore has accrued before the Order of adjudication or winding-up is made, be deemed to be included among the debts which under Sec. 49 of the Presidency-towns Insolvency Act, 1909 (3 of 1909), or under Sec. 61 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 (5 of 1920), or under (Sec. 530 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956)] are to be paid in priority to all other debts in the distribution of the property of the insolvent or assets of the Company being wound-up, as the case may be. "

8. As such for interpretation of Section 11 (1) of the EPF Act, no further discussion may be required in view of the above referred decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Company Application No. 216 of 1997 in Company Petition No. 205 of 1996 and allied matters. Since the language of Section 94 of EPF Act as considered by the Division Bench at para 4 is in substance the same for giving prio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document