TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 1352
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation was allowed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority, against which the present appeal has been filed. Brief facts of the case:- 2. The Corporate debtor, M/s Harshavardhan Cotton and Synthetics Pvt. Ltd., is an establishment, which stands covered under the provisions of Employees' Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, with Code Numbers MD/MDU/41334 and MD/41334-A. The establishment employed 181 workers. On an application that, was instituted by the Operational Creditor, Bhadresh Trading Corporation, the Ld. Adjudicating Authority, directed commencement of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Corporate Debtor by an order dated 12.03.2018 in CP/104/IB/CB/2018. During this process, the Hon'ble NCLT declared a moratorium and appointed Mr. Raghuram Mani as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP). Since no resolution plans were received, the committee of creditors (COC) resolved to liquidate the Corporate Debtor during its 3rd meeting on 14.03.2018 and to file an appropriate application to that effect before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority. Consequently, vide the order dated 03.12.2018, the adjudicating authority allowed the said applic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....st, and it has already been included for consideration under Section 53(1)(e) of I & B, Code 2016, for the purpose of distribution of liquidation proceeds. 5. The Appellant through his letter dated 27.10.2020 informed the Liquidator, that as per Section 36(4)(a)(iii) of the code, PF dues shall not form the liquidation estate and is bound to be treated as third-party assets in the hands of the Liquidator and therefore the PF dues may be released before initiating the process of distribution of the proceeds in accordance with the waterfall mechanism prescribed under Section 53 of the code. To this, the Liquidator replied on 02.11.2020, thereby contending that only PF contribution of the employee and of the employer are to be treated as the sum due to the workmen / employees from the provident fund, pension fund and gratuity fund and consequently, as third- party assets in the hands of the Liquidator as per provision of Section 36(4)(a)(iii) of the Code and that the claim of the Appellant towards penal damages and interest have been categorised and placed under Section 53(1)(e) of the code and same would be paid depending upon the realisation of the assets of the CD, as per the pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....port & the compliance certificate in the shape of Form-H have been filed, which indicated that the corporate debtor has been completely liquidated, passed the impugned order ordering dissolution of the corporate debtor on 17.11.2023. The Liquidator intimated the same to the Appellant through his letter dated 22.11.2023, enclosing a copy of the impugned order. Aggrieved by the said order, which dissolved the CD, without settling his claim, the Appellant herein has preferred the instant appeal. Appellant's submissions: 8. It is the case of the Appellant that the Liquidator has incorrectly concluded that only the contribution of the workmen, and the contribution of the employer towards PF will be covered by the provisions of Section 36(4)(a)(iii) of the Code and that the interest computed under 7Q and damages computed under 14B of EPF Act are in the nature of government dues and will come under Section 53(1)(e) instead of Section 36(4)(a)(iii). The Appellant has submitted that, the Liquidator has erred in law by placing the claim of the Appellant under Section 53(1)(e) of the code, in complete disregard of the settled position of law regarding distribution of assets of the CD un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ument that Section 53(1) cannot be made applicable to the dues coming under provident fund, pension fund, and gratuity fund and that the PF dues should have been paid before commencing distribution of liquidation proceeds under Section 53(1) of the I & B Code, 2016. 10. The Appellant has further contended that the financial creditor, the City Union Bank, has been the beneficiary of distribution of the assets of the CD and therefore it has to return the amount equivalent to his claim in view of specific provision under Regulation 43 of IBBI (liquidation process) regulations 2016. Accordingly, it was prayed that the impugned order of Ld. NCLT maybe set aside and the Respondent may be directed to re-distribute the claim amount of Rs.6,34,816/- due to EPFO on first priority from and out of the liquidation assets of the CD. Case of the Respondent 11. On the contrary, the Respondent/Liquidator has submitted that, it had discharged its duties as contemplated under the code including publication of the notice, inviting claims, verification and admission of the claims, preparation of the list of stakeholders, preparing and completing the audit of the books of accounts for the entir....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... through the submissions and records submitted by both the parties. The wider issues to be decided are threefold; a) Whether, in the event of process of settlement of claims during liquidation, Section 36(4)(a)(iii) will take precedence over Section 53 of the I & B Code, 2016. b) Whether 'all sums due to any workmen or employee from the provident fund, the pension fund and the gratuity fund' as described in Section 36(4)(a)(iii) of the Code, will also include interest under Section 7Q and damages under Section 14B as determined under the relevant provisions of EPF Act and claimed by EPFO as due from the CD? c) Whether the sums as described above will have to be held in a dedicated fund in the CD so as qualify to be a third-party asset to remain outside the liquidation estate? 14. The first issue has already been conclusively decided by a series of judgements pronounced by Supreme Court and NCLAT. Supreme Court in its judgement dated 02.05.2023 in the matter of Moser Baer Karamchari union versus Union of India and Others reported in (2023)238Compcas458(SC) categorically has held that in case of liquidation of a company under the I & B Code, 2016, the di....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6, will consist of not only the amount determined under Section 7A, but also the amounts to be determined under Section 7Q and Section 14B as well. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgement is extracted below:- "..,51.The Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down that there is no reason to give restrictive meaning of expression ..any amount due from the employer,, and to confine to only amount determined under Section 7A of the EPF Act, The Hon'ble supreme Court further held that interest payable.by the employee under Section 7Q and the damages levied under Section; 148 of the EPF Act will also be covered as dues from the employers for the purpose of Section 11(2) of the EPF Act. 52. we note that in the present appeal the amount which has been claimed by the employer are covered under Section 7A, 7Q and 14B of the EPF Act and therefore are fully governed by the judgement Maharashtra state Cooperative Bank (Supra). 53. In view of this clear judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India the contention of the Appellant are not tenable and stand rejected. 54. we also note that the Hon'ble supreme court of India in Sunil Kumar Jain v, Sundares....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... employer to pay interest in case the payment of the amount due is delayed and also pay damages, if there is default in making contribution to the Fund. If any amount payable by the employer becomes due and the same is not paid within the stipulated time, then the employer is required to pay interest in terms of the mandate of Section 7Q. Likewise, default on the employer's part to pay any contribution to the Fund can visit him with the consequence of levy of damages." 119. The above judgment lays down that any amount due from employer appearing in sub-Section (2) of Section 11 also covers the amount determined under Section 14B and there cannot be any quarrel to the preposition as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case. The priority for payment of debt under Section 11 of the 1952 Act has to be looked into in view of the mechanism which is specifically provided under Section 53(1) of the Code. We have already dealt the provision of Section 36(4)(a)(iii) of the Code and held that provident fund dues are not subject to distribution under Section 53(1) of the Code. The issue is fully covered by three member bench judgment of this Tribunal in "Tourism Fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ator shall not have any claim over such funds." 19. The Respondent relies on a cursory reading of the paragraph as above to contend that workmen/employees will be paid out of the provident fund, gratuity fund, and the pension fund, if any, available and if such funds are not available, then the dues of the employees in form of PF, pension, and gratuity will have to be paid in accordance with the provisions of Section 53 of the code. This is not a correct interpretation which can be assigned to the issue. If the entire judgement is taken into consideration, it will be apparently clear that the provident fund, gratuity fund and the pension fund will have to be kept outside the liquidation estate by treating it as third party asset. It is not material whether this funds are maintained in a dedicated account as long as such amounts are held by the CD. Even if they are not classified in a dedicated account, then too it has to be presumed that, the CD is holding these amounts and will have to pay the said amount to the workmen/employee at an appropriate time. It needs to be mentioned here that certain enterprises have been given the latitude to open their own provident funds/pension f....