Provident fund dues take priority over exchange bye-laws, allowing recovery from a member's deposit held by the stock exchange.

Provident Fund recovery could reach a security deposit held by a stock exchange because the deposit was treated as money belonging to the defaulting member and therefore recoverable under Section 8F of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The statutory scheme allowed the Commissioner to proceed against any person holding money for or on account of the employer, and provident fund dues had first charge priority under Section 11(2). Exchange bye-laws, lien rights and contractual priority could not override the statutory mandate. The attachment was upheld and the challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Provident Fund authorities could attach the security deposit lying with the stock exchange under Section 8F of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, notwithstanding the stock exchange bye-laws, lien and priority arrangement over the deposit.

Analysis: The deposit in the hands of the stock exchange was money belonging to the defaulting member and was therefore amenable to recovery under Section 8F. The statutory scheme empowered the Commissioner to proceed against any person holding money for or on account of the employer, and the provisions of Section 11(2) conferred priority on provident fund dues by creating a first charge on the assets of the establishment. The exchange bye-laws and contractual priority could not prevail against the statutory mandate. The Act being a welfare legislation, its recovery provisions were construed to protect provident fund dues and to give them precedence over other claims.

Conclusion: The attachment was valid and the challenge to it failed.

---