TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether recovery proceedings for provident fund dues, including attachment and appointment of a receiver, against a sick industrial company are barred by section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985.
Analysis: The statutory scheme under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 protects certain proceedings where an enquiry, scheme, or appeal concerning a sick company is pending, but that protection is directed to measures that would impede rehabilitation. The Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 creates a distinct welfare regime founded on compulsory employee and employer contributions, with the employee's deducted contribution treated as money entrusted for deposit with the Fund. The Court distinguished between ordinary recoveries affected by section 22(1) and provident fund dues, holding that the latter are employees' hard-earned statutory benefits and not a company asset. It further noted that the special relaxation under section 14B is confined to reduction or waiver of damages for a sick industrial company with a sanctioned rehabilitation scheme, and does not exempt the employer from remitting employees' provident fund contributions or bar recovery of such dues. The cited authorities on section 22(1) were held not to control the provident fund context.
Conclusion: Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 does not bar recovery proceedings under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, and the coercive steps taken for recovery of employees' provident fund dues were upheld.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the provident fund dues remained recoverable notwithstanding the company's sick status, and the protective umbrella of the rehabilitation statute was held inapplicable to such statutory employee contributions.
Ratio Decidendi: Provident fund contributions deducted from employees' wages are statutory trust monies owed to employees and are not shielded from recovery by section 22(1) of the sick companies legislation, which does not extend to bar enforcement of such welfare dues.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
