JUDGMENT
A.S. Naidu, J.
1. Orissa Agro Industries Corporation Limited, a Government of Orissa Undertaking, has filed this Writ Petition invoking this Court’s jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash the order dated 31st March, 2003 -Annexure 11, the order dated 4th July, 2003 – Annexure 14 and the order dated 18th July, 2003 – Annexure 16, passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Orissa, Bhubaneswar, opposite party No. 2 and for other ancillary reliefs.
2. In order to cater to the need of farmers at their door step, the petitioner concern was established. It has engaged several employees to achieve its objectives. While matter stood thus, the petitioner Corporation received a notice under Section 7-A of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for determination of the amount due from the petitioner towards the provident fund of its employees. After perusing the reply of the petitioner to the said notice and giving opportunity to the petitioner, the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, opposite party No. 2, vide order Annexure-11, assessed the dues payable by the petitioner concern. A review application filed by the petitioner was rejected. After adjudication, finally it was held that the petitioner was liable to pay a sum of Rs. 2,92,00,000.00 . (Two Crores Ninety two Lakhs) towards the provident fund dues of its employees. As the said amount was not paid, the Provident Fund Authorities initiated proceedings for recovery thereof and issued an order under Section 8-F of the Act to the State Bank of India, Bhubaneswar Branch and other Banks calling upon” item to attach the amount lying in deposit in the account of the petitioner. The Provident Fund Authorities also attached the other Bank accounts of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said action, the petitioner has approached this Court.
3. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, opposite party No. 2, on receipt of notice appeared through Mr. U.K. Samal, Advocate and has filed a counter-affidavit inter alia submitting that the order passed under Section 7-A of the Act is appealable and as such the present Writ Petition should be dismissed in limine.
4. The State Bank of India, Commercial Branch, Bhubaneswar filed a petition for intervention inter alia submitting that the Bank has a lien over the amount lying in deposit in the petitioner’s account in respect of the loans availed by the petitioner and as such the order issued by the Provident Fund authorities directing the Bank to pay the amount lying in the Bank in petitioner’s account to the Provident Fund authorities is not just and proper and unless the said order is varied, it would cause immense hardship to the intervener Bank.
5. In course of hearing, Mr. Jagannath Patnaik, learned Senior
Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner
does not dispute with regard to its payability of the sum of Rs. 2
crores 92 lakhs as demanded by the Provident Fund authorities
towards arrear provident fund dues. He further submitted that
the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner No. I, Orissa by his
letter dated 14th November, 2003 Considering the representation
filed by the petitioner has agreed to certain terms and conditions,
the most important term being for payment of the admitted dues
by the petitioner in thirty six monthly instalments, each instalment
being of Rs. 8.11 lakhs apart from payment of the current monthly
Provident Fund dues regularly.
6. It is no doubt correct that against an order passed under Section 7-A of the Act an appeal lies. But then this is a case where the petitioner, a Government of Orissa Undertaking, is not disputing its payability of the amount fixed by the Provident Fund authorities. The only prayer of the petitioner advanced in course of hearing of the case is to fix suitable instalments keeping in mind the current financial position of the petitioner, so that it would be possible for it to liquidate the entire arrear dues. In view of such submission, without entering into the arena of controversy as to whether an appeal would lie in the matter or not, we feel ends of justice and equity would be better served if this Court fixes suitable instalments for payment of the entire arrear Provident Fund dues, i.e. Rs. 2 crores 92 lakhs to the Provident Fund authorities which will also be beneficial to the said authorities.
7. After patiently hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length and diligently considering the submissions made, we feel that as the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner No. I, Orissa has agreed for payment of the outstanding arrear Provident Fund dues by the petitioner in instalments, it would be just and convenient to fix the terms for such payment. Accordingly we direct that the entire arrear dues of Rs. 2 crores 92 lakhs towards Provident Fund shall be paid by the petitioner concern in sixty equal monthly instalments besides payment of the current Provident Fund dues by the petitioner every month regularly to the Provident Fund authorities. We further direct that if the petitioner fails to pay any two consecutive monthly instalments, the entire balance amount shall become payable at a time and it would be open to the Provident Fund Authorities to realise the same in consonance with law. On payment of the first instalment by the petitioner, attachment of its accounts in different Banks shall be lifted.
8. So far as contention of Mr. P.V. Ramdas, learned Senior counsel appearing for the State Bank of India, we find that the same is not the subject-matter of the present. Writ Petition. As the attachment order would be lifted on payment of the first instalment by the petitioner, the Bank need not pay the amount lying with it in petitioner’s account to the Provident Fund authorities. The petition for intervention is rejected with an observation that if the Bank has any lien over the amount in petitioner’s account, it would be open to it to work out its remedies in competent Court.
9. With the aforesaid direction/observation the Writ Petition and the Misc. Cases are disposed of. Parties to bear their own costs.
Sujit Barman Roy, C.J.
10. I agree.