1. The petitioner is the Recovery Officer attached to the office of the Regional Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Coimbatore. In this writ petition, they are seeking for a direction to the first respondent to release a sum of Rs. 62,32,349/- out of the accounts / deposits held by the first respondent before the third respondent and to pass appropriate orders.

2. When this writ petition came up on 26.09.2012, this court directed notice on admission. On such notice, the third respondent has filed a counter affidavit, dated 29.10.2012. The Official Liquidator has filed a report, dated 19.12.2012 along with the typed set of documents. The Recovery Officer has filed a reply affidavit, dated Nil (February, 2013).

3. Heard the arguments of Ms.R.Meenakshi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.S.R.Sundar, learned counsel for the Official Liquidator and Ms.R.Umasuthan, learned counsel for the third respondent. The second and fourth respondents though served not appeared through any authorised representative or counsel.

4. The case of the petitioner was that the 4th respondent company is covered by the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund Act and their registered Code number is TN/6264. They are the chronic defaulter in payment of PF dues. Despite notices have been issued under Section 7A, they have not paid the PF dues. Thereafter the amounts were computed including damages and interest were levied. The total dues payable by the 4th respondent company starting from September, 2001 to December, 2009, including interest and damages, worked out to Rs.62,32,349/-. In the meanwhile, M/s.Sundaram Finance Ltd., the creditor of the 4th respondent company, filed a company petition in C.P.No.243 of 1997. This court had ordered winding up of the company, by an order dated 25.6.2001. Pursuant to the directions issued by this court, the first respondent Official Liquidator took over the assets of the company. Even during the pendency of the company petition, as the company became sick, it was referred to the BIFR for framing a scheme. The BIFR, by an order dated 23.5.2006 had directed neither secured creditors nor any other agencies will not be permitted to execute a decree or order passed, if any in respect of the winding up petitions. As against the order of winding up, the two Directors of the company had preferred O.S.A.Nos.38 to 40 of 2006 before this court.

5. A learned Judge of this court was appointed as the Chairman of the Committee consisting of two Directors so as to take charge of the assets of the four units. The committee took over the assets on 19.03.2006. At that time, before the division bench the workmen were represented through counsel and they informed that the PF amount was not remitted. The Committee recorded the same in his minutes on 19.03.2006. There were two rival groups of persons claiming control over the company. One group consisting of one Mathivanan and Kumanan were paying Rs.10 lakhs towards rental amount for lease period from 1.7.2007. It was the understanding of the petitioner that the amounts have been paid continuously from July, 2007. The Recovery Officer has filed a claim in Form 66 before the Official Liquidator claiming amounts towards PF contribution. They also brought to the notice of the Official Liquidator regarding overriding effect of Section 11(2) of the PF Act. Even though the OL is having a lot of accumulation by way of collecting rent, the petitioner approached the company court by filing C.A.No.323 of 2010. The Company Court by its order dated 24.08.2010, had granted liberty to the Regional PF Commissioner to move an appropriate application before the BIFR for necessary orders. It was also stated that the claim of the PF Department can also be covered under Section 529A of the Companies Act.

6. Though Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies Act prohibits recovery of any amount pending BIFR reference, a Full Bench of this court vide judgment in G