Parvathi Mills vs The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Dama Seshadri Naidu, JJ.—This appeal is filed by the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 33704 of 2004. The petitioner is one of the units of National Textile Corporation, a Government of India undertaking. The unit had become a Sick Industrial undertaking as defined in the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, hereinafter referred to as ''SICA'', for short. Under the provisions of the Act, on a reference being made to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR), the company was declared as a sick industrial undertaking by order dated 12.01.1993. Accordingly, an operating agency was appointed, a scheme was prepared and finally after hearing all parties, the scheme was approved by the BIFR on 07.02.2002. A copy of the sanctioned scheme is Ext. P1. Subsequently, the first respondent issued Exhibits P5, P7, P8, P10, P11, P13 and P14 demand notices and attachment notices against the appellant for realization of their dues which were in default. It was challenging the aforesaid demand notices and attachment notices the appellant filed a Writ Petition. By the judgment under appeal, the learned single Judge disposed of the Writ Petition directing the appellant to pay the amounts that are due within three months. It was challenging this judgment, the appeal is filed.

We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

Contention raised by the counsel for the appellant is that in the light of Ext. P1 sanctioned scheme of the BIFR, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Section 22 of the SICA, and that therefore, no coercive action against the appellant could have been initiated except with the consent of the BIFR. He relied on the judgments of the Apex Court in Deputy Commercial Tax Officer and Others Vs. Corromandal Pharmaceuticals and Others, , Tata Davy Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa and Others, , Raheja Universal Limited Vs. NRC Limited and Others, . Another contention raised was that the liability of the appellant to pay interest is only at the rate of 9.5%, which rate was agreed by the Central Board of Trustees in the meeting held on 12.04.2002. According to the counsel, despite this, the respondents have demanded interest at 12%. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel contended that the appellant cannot take refuge under the provisions of the SICA, to resist the demand for dues under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act (hereinafter referred to as the ''EPF Act''). In support, counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Dharampal (Dead) through Legal Heirs and National Engineering Industries Limited and Another [ 2001(1) LLJ 1422]. In so far as the rate of interest is concerned, according to the counsel, the rate of interest is statutory and that 12% demanded is as per Section 7Q of the EPF Act.

We have considered the submissions made. The provisions of the SICA, provides for rehabilitation of Sick Industrial Companies, by way of implementation of schemes sanctioned by the BIFR. For the effective implementation of the scheme, provision has also made in Section 22 of the Act for suspension of legal proceedings against such companies also. However, a reading of Section 22 shows that where in respect of an industrial company like the appellant, Section 22 will be attracted only when a sanctioned scheme is under implementation and in such a case, no proceedings for the winding up of the company or for execution, distress or the like against any of the properties of the company or for the appointment of a receiver in respect thereof [and no suit for recovery of money or for the enforcement of any security against the industrial company or of any guarantee in respect of any loans or advance granted to the industrial company] shall lie or be proceeded with further, except with the consent of the Board or, as the case may be, the Appellate Authority. In other words, the appellant can claim the benefit of Section 22 only if it is shown that Exhibit P1 sanctioned scheme is under implementation.

As we have already seen, in 1993, the company was declared as a Sick Industrial Company and Exhibit P1 scheme was sanctioned by the Board on 07.02.2002. Provisions of the scheme show that it was sanctioned on the expectation that on implementation of the scheme, the appellant would be in a position to turn around its net worth positive by the end of the fourth year after implementation of the scheme, i.e. by 31.03.2007 and its accumulated losses would be completely wiped out by the end of the sixth year after implementation, i.e. by 31.03.2009. Appellant does not have a case that any steps in pursuance of the scheme has been taken. On the other hand, according to the appellant, due to certain litigations pending in some courts, the details of which are also not disclosed, the implementation of the scheme did not take place. This, therefore, shows that this is a case where the appellant has failed to establish that the sanctioned scheme is under implementation as provided under Section 22 of the SICA, which alone can enable the appellant to claim the benefit of suspension of legal proceedings as provided in the said section. Therefore, we are of the view that the appellant cannot claim the benefit of Section 22 of the SICA to resist enforcement of the demand notices and attachment notices impugned in the writ petition. Further, we also find that the respondents are well founded in their submission made. However, in so far as the rate of interest demanded is concerned, though it is true that the rate of interest is provided in Section 7Q of the EPF Act, if as stated by the appellant, the Central Board of Trustees have agreed for a reduced rate, it is always open to the appellant to seek the benefit of such concession by approaching the Central Board of Trustees concerned or the officers of the department.

While we reserve the aforesaid liberty in favour of the appellant, on merits, we do not find any reason justifying interference of the impugned notices. Writ Appeal fails. However, counsel for the appellant requested for a reasonable time to pay off the liability. It is a fact that the appellant is not entitled to the benefit claimed in the Writ Petition. Still fact remains that the factory is lying closed for several years. In such circumstances, we allow the appellant to pay the amount due to the department in three equal instalments. The first instalment shall be paid on expiry of four months from the first of August, 2014. Second instalment shall be payable on the expiry of eight months from the first of August, 2014 and the third instalment shall also be paid on the expiry of twelve months from the first of August, 2014.