Case: E.P.F.Commissioner Vs. O.L.Of Esskay Pharmaceuticals Ltd

Messrs Esskay Pharmaceuticals Limited is a company registered under the Companies Act. It falls within the definition of `employer under Section 2(e) of the EPF Act. On account of the companys failure to pay the dues under the EPF Act for the periods from March 1998 to May 1999 and June 1999 to August 2001, the competent authority passed two orders under Section 7A of the EPF Act and held that it was liable to pay Rs.14,96,751/-. The company appears to have paid a sum of Rs.4,02,126/- but did not pay the remaining amount despite the issue of demand notices dated 12.4.2001 and 19.4.2001 by the competent authority. The orders passed under Section 8F of the EPF Act, which were communicated to the bankers of the company also did not yield the desired result. The competent authority then issued warrant for attachment of the companys property. This was followed by sale notice dated 20.9.2001.6. Although, it is not clear from the record as to what happened to the sale notice, but this much is evident that after 2 years and about 4 months, the Enforcement Officer informed the appellant that the Gujarat High Court has passed order dated 11.3.2004 for winding up of the company and appointed Official Liquidator to look after its properties and clear the debts. The appellant then approached the Official Liquidator for payment of the amount determined under Section 7A of the EPF Act, but the latter did not give any response.7. Company Application No. 356/2007 filed by the appellant for issue of a direction to the Official Liquidator to pay the amount payable by the employer under the EPF Act was dismissed by the learned Company Judge by relying upon the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in Company Application No. 216 of 1997 in Company Petition No.205 of 1996 and order dated 31.8.2005 passed in Company Application No.195 of 2005 - Regional Provident Commissioner-I v. M.A. Kuvadia, O.L. and others.8. The appellant challenged the order of the learned Company Judge by filing an appeal but could not convince the Division Bench of the High Court to entertain his plea that the amount due from the employer is first charge on the assets of the company and is payable in priority to all other dues. The Division Bench relied upon the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench and held that the learned Company Judge did not commit any error by dismissing the application filed by the appellant.9. Since the impugned judgment and the order passed by the learned Company Judge are entirely based on the order passed by another Division Bench in Company Application No. 216/1997 in Company Petition No. 205/1996, it will be appropriate to notice the ratio of that order. The same is asSub-section (1), clearly observes that in a winding up matter, subject to the provisions of Section-529(A), there shall be paid in priority to all other debts, dues of the Government, which are in the form of revenues, tax, etc. When Section-530 is made subordinate to Section-529(A), then, a Court is obliged to look into the material provisions as contained under Section-529(A). Section-529(A) clearly provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of the Companies Act or any other law for the time being in force, in the winding up of a company, workmens dues and debts due to the secured creditors to the extent such debts rank under clause (c) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section-529 pari passu with such dues, shall be paid in priority to all other debts.Section-529(A) has been introduced in the year 1985. It starts with a non-obstante clause. It clearly provides thatanything contained in any other provision of the Act or any other law for the time being inA true understanding of Section-529(A) would make clear that the provisions of Section-529(A) shall override the provisions contained in Section-530. Not only this, the provisions contained in Section-529(A) shall override the provisions contained in the ESI Act because the ESI Act is an Act of 1948, while the amendment in the Companies Act has been made in the year 1985 and with the fullest knowledge that it was to override the provisions contained in Section-530. If Section-94 of the ESI Act and Section-530 of the Companies Act are made subordinate to Section-529(A), then, Section-529(A) shall march over the rights of others to which the others are entitled either under the special laws or under Section-530 of the Companies Act. A combined/conjoint reading of Section- 529(A) of the Companies Act would make clear that in a matter of winding up, the workmens dues and the debts due to the secured creditors to the extent such debts rank under clause (c) of the proviso to Sub-section (l) of Section-529(A) pari passu with such dues, shall be paid in priority to all other debts. If such dues and debts are paid in full and even thereafter, some money is left with the Official Liquidator for its distribution, then, such money can be distributed under Section-530 of the Companies Act. When such a situation crops up, the State Government or the Central Government of the Local Authority may file their claim before the learned Company Judge and at that point of time, they may say that in view of their preferential right, either under the Local Act or under Section-530 of the Companies Act, they be paid.The factual matrix of the other appeals is more or less similar. In all the cases, applications filed by the appellant for payment of the amount due from the employer were dismissed by the learned Company Judge and the appeals were dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court.

Court's reasoning:
The argument of Shri Gaurav Agrawal that the non obstante clause contained in the subsequent legislation, i.e. Section 529A(1) of the Companies Act should prevail over similar clause contained in an earlier legislation, i.e. Section 11(2) of the EPF Act sounds attractive, but if the two provisions are read in the light of the objects sought to be achieved by the legislature by enacting the same, it is not possible to agree with the learned counsel. As noted earlier, the object of the amendment made in the EPF Act by Act No.40 of 1973 was to treat the dues payable by the employer as first charge on the assets of the establishment and to ensure that the same are recovered in priority to other debts. As against this, the amendments made in the Companies Act in 1985 are intended to create a charge pari passu in favour of the workmen on every security available to the secured creditors of the company for recovery of their debts. There is nothing in the language of Section 529A which may give an indication that legislature wanted to create first charge in respect of the workmens dues, as defined in Sections 529(3)(b) and 529A and debts due to the securedis also important to bear in mind that even before the insertion of proviso to Sections 529(1), 529(3) and Section 529A and amendment of Section 530(1), all sums due to any employee from a provident fund, a pension fund, a gratuity fund or any other fund established for welfare of the employees were payable in priority to all other debts in a winding up proceedings [Section 530(1)(f)]. Even the wages, salary and other dues payable to the workers and employees were payable in priority to all other debts. What Parliament has done by these amendments is to define the termnd to place them at par with debts due to secured creditors to the extent such debts rank under clause (c) of the proviso to Section 529(1). However, these amendments, though subsequent in point of time, cannot be interpreted in a manner which would result in diluting the mandate of Section 11 of the EPF Act, sub-section (2) whereof declares that the amount due from an employer shall be the first charge on the assets of the establishment and shall be paid in priority to all other debts. The wordsused in Section 11(2) would necessarily include the debts due to secured creditors like banks, financial institutions etc. The mere ranking of the dues of workers at par with debts due to secured creditors cannot lead to an inference that Parliament intended to create first charge in favour of the secured creditors and give priority to the debts due to secured creditors over the amount due from the employer under the EPF Act.43. At the cost of repetition, we would emphasize that in terms of Section 530(1), all revenues, taxes, cesses and rates due from the company to the Central or State Government or to a local authority, all wages or salary or any employee, in respect of the services rendered to the company and due for a period not exceeding 4 months all accrued holiday remuneration etc. and all sums due to any employee from provident fund, a pension fund, a gratuity fund or any other fund for the welfare of the employees maintained by the company are payable in priority to all other debts. This provision existed when Section 11(2) was inserted in the EPF Act by Act No. 40 of 1973 and any amount due from an employer in respect of the employees contribution was declared first charge on the assets of the establishment and became payable in priority to all other debts. However, while inserting Section 529A in the Companies Act by Act No.35 of 1985 Parliament, in its wisdom, did not declare the workmens dues (this expression includes various dues including provident fund) as first charge. The effect of the amendment made in the Companies Act in 1985 is only to expand the scope of the dues of workmen and place them at par with the debts due to secured creditors and there is no reason to interpret this amendment as giving priority to the debts due to secured creditor over the dues of provident fund payable by an employer. Of course, after the amount due from an employer under the EPF Act is paid, the other dues of the workers will be treated at par with the debts due to secured creditors and payment thereof will be regulated by the provisions contained in Section 529(1) read with Section 529(3), 529A and 530 of the Companies Act.44. In view of what we have observed above on the interpretation of Section 11 of the EPF Act and Sections 529, 529A and 530 of the Companies Act, the judgment of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court, which turned on the interpretation of Section 94 of the Employees State Insurance Act and Sections 529A and 530 of the Companies Act and on which reliance has been placed by the learned Company Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court while dismissing the applications filed by the appellant, cannot be treated as laying down the correct law.