Provident fund adjudication survives BIFR protection, while coercive recovery is restrained and the statutory appeal must be exhausted.

Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 restrains coercive enforcement, distress and recovery against the assets of a sick industrial company, but it does not suspend the underlying provident fund liability or bar adjudication under section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The adjudication process and recovery process are distinct, so a BIFR reference does not prevent determination of dues, while actual recovery remains subject to the sick company protection. A writ petition against a section 7A order is ordinarily not maintainable without first exhausting the statutory appeal under section 7-I, especially where notice and hearing were already afforded.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a reference registered before the BIFR under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 bars an order of adjudication under section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952; and (ii) whether the writ petition was maintainable without first availing the statutory appeal under section 7-I of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.

Issue (i): Whether a reference registered before the BIFR under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 bars an order of adjudication under section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.

Analysis: The embargo under section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 operates against execution, distress, coercive recovery and similar enforcement steps against the assets of a sick industrial company. It does not suspend the underlying liability to contribute under the provident fund , nor does it prohibit the competent authority from determining dues by an adjudication under section 7A. The adjudicatory process and the recovery process are distinct, and only the latter is restricted pending the BIFR proceedings.

Conclusion: The reference before the BIFR did not bar the adjudication order under section 7A, and the objection based on section 22 failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition was maintainable without first availing the statutory appeal under section 7-I of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.

Analysis: An order passed under section 7A is appealable under section 7-I, and that appellate remedy is efficacious. Since the petitioner had been given notice and hearing, and there was no complaint of lack of opportunity or action behind its back, the writ court would not ordinarily interfere when a statutory appeal is available. The existence of the appeal remedy therefore told against maintainability.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable without exhausting the statutory appeal, and the petitioner was relegated to the appellate remedy.

Final Conclusion: The adjudication of provident fund dues was upheld, while coercive recovery remained subject to the statutory restraint applicable under the sick company regime; the writ court declined interference and left the petitioner to the appellate forum.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 bars coercive enforcement and recovery proceedings, but does not bar adjudication of liability under a separate welfare statute, and a writ petition will ordinarily not lie where an efficacious statutory appeal is available.

---