SICA rehabilitation scheme's overriding effect governs ESI interest claims, leaving BIFR as the proper authority to decide payability.

A scheme framed under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 was treated as having statutory force and overriding effect under section 32 over inconsistent provisions of other laws, including the Employees' State Insurance Corporation's claim to decide interest on outstanding dues independently. The discussion notes that the scheme itself provided for payment to the Corporation, that the issue was jurisdictional, and that the Corporation had submitted to the BIFR process. In a conflict between special enactments, the later special enactment was said to prevail, making the BIFR the proper authority to determine interest and payability under the rehabilitation scheme.

---

---

Issues: Whether the scheme framed under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 had overriding effect over the claim and jurisdiction of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation in relation to interest on outstanding dues.

Analysis: The scheme prepared under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 had statutory force and contained provision for payment to the Employees' State Insurance Corporation. Section 32 of the Act gave overriding effect to the Act, its rules and schemes over inconsistent provisions of other laws. The controversy was treated as a jurisdictional one, and the Court noted that the Corporation had submitted to the BIFR's jurisdiction. In a conflict between two special enactments, the later special enactment would ordinarily prevail, and the BIFR was the appropriate authority to consider the question of interest and payability.

Conclusion: The BIFR, and not the Employees' State Insurance Corporation acting independently of the scheme, was held to be the proper authority to decide the issue of interest and payment under the rehabilitation scheme, in favour of the petitioner.

---