JAYANTA KUMAR BISWAS, J. - (1.) THE petitioners are questioning the orders of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner dated June 17th, 2005 and July 14th, 2005 made under Section 7A and 8F; respectively of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. By the 7A order the authority determined the dues payable by the establishment of the petitioners on account of contributions and interest at Rs. 3071717/ - and Rs. 664892/ - respectively. Though the order under Section 7A was appealable, the petitioners did not prefer any appeal.
(2.) SINCE they did not pay the determined dues, the authority issued the attachment order dated July 14th, 2005 ordering the bank concerned to pay Rs. 37,36,609/ -. The writ petition was taken out on July 16th, 2005. By order dated August 12th, 2005 the petitioners were permitted to pay the amount mentioned in the attachment order in instalments. They were directed to set apart a sum of Rs. 10 lakh in a nationalized bank, and the authority was given liberty to take coercive measures in accordance with law, in default of compliance with the directions by the petitioners regarding payment and security. Counsel submits that though in compliance with order of this Court dated, August 12th, 2005 the petitioners paid the dues, in violation of that order the authority withdrew the sum of Rs. 10 lakh that has been set apart by the petitioners by way of security. He questions the orders and prays for an order directing the authority to refund the illegally withdrawn sum of Rs. 10 lakh with interest. The orders made under Sections 7A and 8F are questioned by him on the ground that the authority did not consider the facts that the establishment was not only an exempted one, but was also a sick company within the meaning of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. The attachment order has been assailed on the additional ground that in view of the provisions in Section 8(b), the provident fund authority was not empowered to make any order under Section 8F for recovery of the amount determined under Section 7A. There is nothing to show that in the 7A proceedings the petitioners submitted any written statement contending that in view of the facts that the establishment was an exempted one; and the company was a sick company declared by the competent authority, the provident fund authority was not competent to initiate the proceedings for determining the dues and levying interest. The advocate for the establishment appeared before the provident fund authority in the proceedings under Section 7A and he did not raise the contention before the authority as well. Hence, it cannot be now argued that the authority made the order under Section 7A overlooking or ignoring the facts that the establishment was not only an exempted establishment, but the company concerned was also a sick company.
(3.) EVEN otherwise, I do not find any merit in the contentions. The fact that the establishment was an exempted establishment had nothing to do with its liability to pay the statutory dues to the trust concerned. The amount determined under Section 7A was to be paid by it in terms of conditions specified while granting it exemption in terms of the provisions in Section 17. It is clear from the provisions in Section 8(b) that for recovery of amount due from the establishment in terms of conditions specified under Section 17, the provident fund authority was competent to make order under Section 8F. Since it admittedly failed to pay the dues for April and May 2004, the provident fund authority was competent to initiate the proceedings under Section 7A.;