A. SUBBIAH Vs. B. THIRUVENKATASWAMI
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Click here to view full judgement.
S.Ganesan, J. -
(1.) THE decree holder is the appellant; and he is aggrieved that the Courts below have rejected his application for attachment of the provident fund amount of the respondent (an employee in Vasantha Mills, Coimbatore, who had retired from service) which was still in the hands of the mills on the date of the application.
(2.) THE provident fund in this case is governed by the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952; and Section 10 thereof reads thus:
The amount standing to the credit of any member in the fund or of any exempted employee in a provident fund shall not in any way be capable of being assigned or charged and shall not be liable to attachment under any decree or order of any Court in respect of any debt or liability incurred by the member or the exempted employee.
Learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the provisions of Section 10 will not afford any immunity to the respondent, as he had admittedly retired from service on the date of the application for attachment of the provident fund amount.
I have no doubt in my mind that the contention is not well founded. Admittedly the provident fund amount sought to be attached is a 'compulsory deposit' and it is plain that the amount will continue to be a deposit and will not be the property of the respondent -employee, so long as it has not been paid over to him.
(3.) IN Union of India v. Hiba Devi :  1 SCR 765 , the Supreme Court has laid down that the provident fund amount not paid to the subscriber after the date of his retirement; is also 'compulsory deposit' and that it is exempt from attachment and sale under Section 60(1)(k), Civil Procedure Code. The decision was under the Provident Funds Act, 1952.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.