AMITAVA LALA, J. - (1.) This writ petition is arising out of a very important question whether BIFR Scheme under the Sick Industrial Comanies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 will have overriding effect over the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 or not. The line of argument of Mr. Partha Sarathi Sengupta learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner is that there are four points to consider the same. Firstly, whether "special" will prevail over the "general" or not. Whether the latter Act will prevail over the earlier Act or not. Whether the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 provides any non-obstante clause over and above the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 or not. Whether the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 is special to the special Act, i. e., the Employees" State Insurance Act, 1948 or not.
(2.) At the threshold, I find that a claim of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation against the petitioner company for further interest of Rs. 82.78 lakhs is challenged. Although the prayers are not properly made in the writ petition but for the ends of justice, Court can covert the prayer as per the suitability.
(3.) According to Mr. Sengupta, the scheme formulated under the Act provides rate of interest 6% per annum and the company is bound to pay such rate but not any other rate beyond the same as per the claim of the Corporation. As by way of wrong advice they have shown that from August 7, 1996 upto October 22, 1997 i.e. the period within the scheme they are supposed to pay 15% per annum they cannot call back the same but for the remaining balance they cannot be directed to pay de hors the scheme made under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. In that way Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 cannot override the scheme under the aforesaid Act, 1985.;