- (1.) THE only question for decision in this Rule issued at the instance of the Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner is whether a certain sum of money remitted by money order for delivery to the opposite party No. 2 and lying with the Postmaster, Kulti is protected against attachment in view of Section 8 of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Schemes Act, 1948.
(2.) OPPOSITE party No. 2 Aujodhya Dhangar was a coal mine employee and a member of the coal mines provident fund. On or about January 17, 1967 the Coal Mines Provident Fund Regional Commissioner, Asansol, remitted by two money orders a total sum of Rs. 650. 88 p. being the amount standing to the credit of the opposite party No. 2 in the said fund to the latter's address at Kendua Bazar, Post Office Kulti, District-Burdwan. Opposite party No. 1 who had instituted a suit against opposite party No. 2 for recovery of a certain amount of money obtained from the court an order for attachment before judgment of a sum of Rs. 600/- out of the amount remitted by the Coal mines Provident Fund Regional Commissioner, Asansol, which was then lying in the office of the Postmaster, Kulti. The suit was subsequently decreed ex parte and in execution the decree holder prayed for realisation of the decretal dues by remittance of the attached sum to the court. "at this stage the Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner, who is the petitioner be fore me, intervening in the execution case made an application to the court below stating that the sum attached being provident fund money payable to the opposite party No. 2 was not legally attachable and prayed for vacating the order of attachment. The court below rejected the application on the view that as soon as the amount was made over to the postal authority it lost the character of provident fund money and consequently the immunity from attachment. The instant Rule is directed against this order refusing to lift the attachment.
(3.) SECTION 8 (1) of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Schemes Act 1948 is as follows: "protection against attachment (1 ). The amount of the provident fund standing to the credit of any member in the 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 and neither the official assignee nor any Receiver appointed under the Provincial Insolvency Act 1920 shall be entitled to, or have any claim on any such amount. " The above provision thus clearly gives immunity from1 attachment to any amount of the provident fund payable to a member of the Fund. The point urged on behalf of the decree holder in the court below and also before me by Mr. Ganguly appearing for the decree-holder opposite party No. 1 is that as soon as the amount was remitted by money order it went out of the Fund and the immunity from attachment ceased. Mr. Ganguly contended that when the amount standing to the credit of the opposite party No. 2 in the Fund was made over to the postal authority for remittance to him, it lost the character of Provident Fund money and the protection against attachment afforded by Section 8 of the Act was no longer available. According to Mr Ganguly the post Office then became the agent of opposite party No. 2 and there was therefore no bar to the attachment of the amount lying with the Postmaster, Kulti. Mr. Ganguly referred to a number of authorities in support of his contention including a decision reported in AIR 1916 Allahabad 336 Ali Hussain v. State (1) relied on in the judgment of the court below. No useful purpose will however be served by referring to those decisions because in my view whether or not the amount remitted by money order lost the protection given by Sec. 8 of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Schemes Act can be gathered from the relevant provisions of the Act itself and the scheme framed thereunder. I have already referred to Section 8 (1) of the Act. Section 3 of the Act empowers the Central Government to frame a scheme to be called the Coal Mines Provident Fund Scheme for the establishment of a provident fund for employees. Paragraph 66 (1) of the Scheme provides that when the amount standing to the credit of a member of the Provident Fund becomes payable, it shall be the duty of the Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner to make prompt payment as provided in the Scheme. Sub-paragraph (5) of paragraph 66 of the Scheme provides as follows : "any person who desires to claim payment under this paragraph shall send a written application to the Commissioner or to such officer under his control as he may authorise in this behalf, who shall, after the claim is ready for payment, notify to the claimant in such form as the Commissioner may prescribe, the amount to be paid, the amount to be forfeited if any and the mode of payment. The Commissioner or any other officer under his control authorised by the Commissioner in this behalf, as the case may be may make the payment i) By postal money order at the cost of the payee or at any other cost if so determined by the Central Government; or ii) By crossed cheque sent through post; or iii) By crossed cheque or cash at the office of the Commissioner or colliery offices or at such other places as may be approved by the Chairman of the Board from time to time; or iv) By deposit in the payee's Postal Savings Bank Account if any; Provided that where payment is made by any means other than money order or deposit in payee's Savings Bank Account, the Commissioner may obtain such evidence of the identity of the payee as he considers proper". It thus appears from sub-paragraph 5 of paragraph 66 of the Scheme that the Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner or any other officer authorised in this behalf has to intimate to a member of the Fund, among other things, the mode of payment when any amount standing to his credit becomes payable to him. The sub-paragraph further specifies the four different modes of payment. One of the said modes may be selected in a particular case in agreement with the person to whom payment is due. The modes of payment are however fixed by the Statute and though the authority responsible for the payment may adopt one or the other of the prescribed modes at the request of the person to whom payment is made, it cannot be said that the manner of payment in such a case is prescribed or sanctioned by the payee. In the instant case the amount was remitted by postal money order but having regard to the provisions of paragraph 66 (5) of the Schema it will not be correct to say that the post office was acting as the agent of the opposite party No. 2. In view of paragraph 66 (5) of the Scheme it must be held that the postal authority was acting as the statutory agent of the Provident Fund Administration and the obligation cast on the latter by paragraph 66 (1) of the Scheme was not discharged until the amount was actually made over to the payee. The Provident Fund Administration was in the position of a, trustee for oppositte party No. 2 in respect of the said amount till it reached him. This being the position, the court below was in error in holding that the amount in question in the instant case was liable to attachment.;