S.U.KHAN, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. Sugar Mill known by the name of Ratna Sugar Mills Company Limited, Shahganj, Jaunpur was acquired under Uttar Pradesh Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition) Act, 1971 as amended through U.P. Act No. 30 of 1989. The appointed day in relation to the said acquired undertaking was 24.4.1989. Under section -10 of the Act, Chairman Cooperative Tribunal, U.P., Lucknow was appointed as Prescribed Authority required to deal with the claim of the different persons /parties. Since the date of acquisition i.e. 24.4.1989 the acquired undertaking is under the control of petitioner -U.P. State Sugar Corporation. Recovery Officer, Provident Fund, Kanpur (appointed as such under Employees Provident Fund and Misc. Provision Act, 1952 hereinafter referred to as E.P.F. Act) issued a warrant of attachment of immovable property in respect of acquired unit on 5.2.1991 for an amount of about Rs.22,05,000/ - (exact amount Rs.22,04,924.18). The amount was shown to be due for the period from March, 1983 to June, 1986. Petitioner sent letter to the Recovery Officer, E.P.F., Kanpur to the effect that the liability being prior to the date of acquisition i.e. 24.4.1989, it was not payable by the petitioner. On 4.4.1991 respondent No. 2 Recovery Officer, E.P.F., Kanpur sent prohibitory order to the Manager, State Bank of India, Shahganj, Jaunpur and thereupon petitioner's account was closed/attached. Petitioner requested R.P.F. Commissioner and Recovery Officer, E.P.F., Kanpur to withdraw the attachment but of no avail.
(2.) THROUGH this writ petition, warrant of attachment dated 5.2.1991 -Annexure -4 and order of attachment - Annexure -6 sent by respondent No. 2 to the Manager, State Bank of India, Shahganj, Jaunpur have been challenged. The argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that by virtue of section -3 of the Acquisition Act, 1971 on the appointed date the acquired undertaking stands transferred and vested in petitioner free from any debt and encumbrance etc. and such an encumbrance etc. stands attached to the compensation payable to the erstwhile owner. Under section -7 of the Acquisition Act, 1971 it is provided that compensation shall be paid to the erstwhile owner. Under section 7 (6) (cc) it is provided that: any amount of wages, retaining allowance, bonus, provident fund or other payment due to persons employed as workmen (within the meaning of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947), in connection with the scheduled undertaking immediately before the appointed day shall be deducted from the compensation payable to the erstwhile owner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further argued that by virtue of section 8(4) of the Acquisition Act of 1971, E.P.F. Authorities could make a claim to the Prescribed Authority however, they kept silent and did not make any claim. Section 8(4) of the Acquisition Act of 1971 is quoted below: Section 8(4) The Employees' Provident Fund Commissioner or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation may send to the prescribed authority a certificate in respect of either the employees contribution or the employees' contribution realised by the employer of any other dues recoverable from the employer under the Employees' Provident Fund Act, 1952 (Act XIX of 1952), or the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (Act XXXIV of 1948), as the case may be, in respect of any person who was employed in connection with the scheduled undertaking immediately before the appointed day, that the employer may have failed to pay in accordance with the respective Acts.
(3.) IN reply, learned Counsel for the respondents/E.P.F. Authorities argued that by virtue of section 17(B) of the E.P.F. Act inserted by Act No. 40 of 1973 it is provided that in case of transfer of establishment, the transferor employer as well as transferee employer shall jointly and severally be liable to pay the provident fund contribution.;