Showing posts with label EPF-interest-and-damages. Show all posts
Showing posts with label EPF-interest-and-damages. Show all posts

Monday, 5 August 2024

Central Board of Trustees, EPF Vs. Mr. Bhavesh Rathod, Liquidator. - Admittedly, the order creating the demand against the Corporate Debtor was passed after the commencement of liquidation, we have no hesitation to hold that the claim of applicant can not be admitted in the liquidation proceedings.

 NCLT Mumbai-1 (2024.07.19) in Central Board of Trustees, EPF Vs. Mr. Bhavesh Rathod, Liquidator. [C.A. 15 of 2024 IN C.P. (IB)4488/MB/2018] held that; 

  • Admittedly, the order creating the demand against the Corporate Debtor was passed after the commencement of liquidation, we have no hesitation to hold that the claim of applicant can not be admitted in the liquidation proceedings. 


Excerpts of the order;

# 1. The present Company Appeal 15 of 2024 is filed in Company Petition CP No. 4488 of 2018 by the Central Board of Trustees, Employees’ Provident Fund through Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II (Legal) in terms of Section 42 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 in the matter of Ashapura Intimates Fashion Limited seeking following relief; 

  • a) That this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to condone the delay of 40 days in filing the present Company Appeal by the Appellant. 

  • b) That this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to condone the delay of 670 days in filing the Claim by the Appellant and be pleased to pass an order and direct the Liquidator to admit the claim and pay the amount of Rs. 417102/- towards the provident fund dues under section 7Q and 14B of EPF & MP Act, 1952. 

  • c) Any other order that this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of this case. 


# 2. The Corporate Debtor is covered under the Employees' Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The corporate debtor had defaulted in remittance of statutory Provident Fund and allied dues under section 7Q and 14 B to the tune of Rs. 417102/-. The Hon'ble NCLT passed the order of liquidation in respect of the Corporate Debtor on 05.10.2020. The Appellant got notification regarding the Insolvency Resolution Process on 18.07.2022. The Appellant vide letter dated 02.02.2024 submitted its claim before the Liquidator. The Liquidator vide email dated 09.02.2024 replied to the Appellant that the last day to file the claim was 04.11.2020 and requested to make an Appeal for condonation of delay before Hon’ble NCLT. The Appellant, being an organization under the Ministry of Labour and Employment, has to go through various approvals and sanctions from the Higher authorities to file a claim in respect of the Corporate debtor which caused a delay of 670 days in filing a claim against the Corporate debtor. 


# 3. Heard the Counsel and perused the material on record. 


# 4. In the present case, the Liquidation commenced on 5.10.2020 and the order in terms of section 7Q and 14B of the EPF & MP Act, 1952 were passed on 29.12.2023 demanding a sum of Rs. 417102/-. The claim before the Liquidator was filed on 02.02.2024, while the last date for submission of claim in the liquidation process was 4.11.2020. The Liquidator rejected the claim vide email dated 09.02.2024. The appeal has been filed on 08.05.2024. Section 42 of the IB Code require the claimant to file an appeal against the rejection of claim within 14 days. The Hon’ble NCLAT in the case of Canara Bank vs. Commercial Tax Department Madhya Pradesh and Anr. (2023) ibclaw.in 342 NCLAT has held that 

  • “The delay in filing the Appeal under Section 42 is clearly condonable while exercising the power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.” Accordingly, to meet the end of justice, we consider it appropriate to condone the delay in filing the present appeal. 


# 5. Undisputedly the Orders u/s 7Q and 14B of the EPF Act were passed on 29.12.2023 i.e. after the commencement of liquidation in case of corporate debtor on 4.11.2020. Section 33(5) of the IB Code provides that “Subject to section 52, when a liquidation order has been passed, no suit or other legal proceeding shall be instituted by or against the corporate debtor.” In terms of section 38 of the Code, the Liquidator is collect the claims of creditors within 30 days of the liquidation commencement date which is 4.11.2020 in this case. The Hon’ble NCLAT in case of DBS Bank India Ltd. Vs. Kuldeep Verma, Liquidator of Eastern Gases Ltd. (2023) ibclaw.in 103 NCLAT held that 

  • When a statute provides for liquidation commencement date as a date up to which claims can be filed and proved, no claim thereafter can be entertained by the Liquidator. 

Admittedly, the order creating the demand against the Corporate Debtor was passed after the commencement of liquidation, we have no hesitation to hold that the claim of applicant can not be admitted in the liquidation proceedings


# 6. In view of the above, Appeal 15/2024 is dismissed. 

---------------------------------------------


Sunday, 25 February 2024

Mr. Divyesh Desai Vs. Employees Provident Fund Organisation - It is trite law that PF contributions of the employer and employee which are payable to the employee by the PF department do not form part of liquidation estate and has to be paid to the PF department for onward remission to the concerned employees in priority of all other debt.

NCLT Mumbai-1 (2024.02.09) in Mr. Divyesh Desai Vs. Employees Provident Fund Organisation [I.A. 53 Of 2022 in C.P.(IB) No. 619/MB/2018 ] held that;

  • It is trite law that PF contributions of the employer and employee which are payable to the employee by the PF department do not form part of liquidation estate and has to be paid to the PF department for onward remission to the concerned employees in priority of all other debt

  • Accordingly, the Liquidator’s determination of the claim for a sum of Rs. 10,79,49,882/- being the amount of contribution to the Provident Fund included in the said demand of the Respondent is correct and that amount shall be considered falling outside the liquidation estate. 

  • The remaining claim of the applicant in so far as it pertains to claim of interest and damages or any other contribution not payable to the employees of the Corporate Debtor by such fund shall be regarded as operational debt due to the statutory authorities and considered accordingly in terms of Section 53 of the Code. 


Excerpts of the order;

# 1. This Application bearing IA No. 53 Of 2022, is filed by Mr. Divyesh Desai, Liquidator of Nicomet Industries Limited (Applicant), seeking 

1.1. This Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to pass an order taking on record the claim in the manner as adjudicated by the Applicant and as more particularly described in the present application; 

1.2. This Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to pass an order permitting the modification of list of stakeholders filed with this Hon'ble Tribunal, in light of the admission of the claim of the Respondent as verified by the Applicant in the manner as explained in the present application: 

1.3. Pass any order as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 


# 2. That vide order dated December 14, 2018 this Tribunal appointed Mr. Devang Sampat as the Resolution Professional for carrying out the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of the Corporate Debtor. Thereafter, this Tribunal by way of order dated December 16, 2020 initiated the liquidation process of the Corporate Debtor and Mr. Divyesh Desai (the "Applicant/Liquidator") was appointed as the Liquidator of the Corporate Debtor. Thereafter, on December 24, 2020, The Applicant made a public announcement calling upon stakeholders of the Corporate Debtor to submit or update their claims latest by or before January 15, 2021. 

2.1. Pursuant to public announcement, the Employees Provident Fund Organisation ("Respondent") filed their claim in the liquidation process of the Corporate Debtor with the Applicant. During the course of the first meeting of Stakeholders Consultation Committee ("SCC") held on April 5, 2021, the claim filed by the Respondent towards Provident Fund (PF) dues was discussed. During the course of the second meeting of the SCC of the Corporate Debtor held on May 14, 2021, the status of claim adjudication was discussed and the Applicant requested further data and information from the Respondent. Thereafter, the Applicant had addressed an email dated September 6, 2021 to the office of the Respondent thereby informing them that with reference to the claim submitted and information provided by the Respondent, and on the basis of the books of accounts / other records of the Corporate Debtor as available with the Applicant, the Applicant has evaluated the claim and an amount of INR 9,87,66,568/- (Rupees Nine Crores Eighty Seven Lakhs Sixty Six Thousand Five Hundred and Sixty Eight Only) is found to be admissible as more particularly bifurcated and described in the aforesaid email. 

2.2. Further, during the course of the fourth meeting of the SCC of the Corporate Debtor held on September 23, 2021, the Applicant informed about the total amount as found to be admitted in respect of PF dues as claimed by the Respondent. 

2.3. Thereafter, the Applicant visited the office of the Respondent on October 4, 2021 and pursuant to the meeting held on the aforesaid date, the Respondent shared the minutes of the meeting with the Applicant vide email dated October 6, 2021. 

2.4. Subsequently, the Applicant by way of an email dated October 7, 2021 pointed out the omissions and mistakes in the minutes of the meeting shared by the Respondent. 

2.5. The Applicant addressed an email dated October 26, 2021 to the Respondent thereby requesting them to share the document providing claim calculation in terms of Section 7A of the PF Act. Subsequently, The Respondent shared the Microsoft Excel file with the Applicant containing data pertaining to the calculation of dues in terms of Section 7A of the PF Act and the interest charged thereon. 

2.6. Thereafter, the Applicant addressed an email dated November 9, 2021 to the Respondent, thereby stating that the labour charge related liability of INR 475.34 Lakhs was calculated from the balance sheet, and hence, the same must have been taken as annual numbers. The Respondent once again shared the Microsoft Excel Sheet pertaining to calculation of dues in terms of Section 7A of the PF Act. The Applicant once again addressed an email dated November 10. 2021 stating that the Applicant needs break- of the amount of INR 475.34 lakhs pertaining to labour charges on monthly basis. 

2.7. The Applicant finalized the admissible claim amount as INR 12,97,85,105/- (Rupees Twelve Crores Ninety-Seven Lakhs, EightyFive Thousand and One Hundred and Five Only) and communicated the same to the Respondent vide email dated November 18, 2021. The Respondent addressed an email dated December 17, 2021 to the Applicant stating that the assessment of claim by the Applicant is not acceptable to the office of the Respondent and the Respondent further requested the Applicant to consider the claim of the Respondent in entirety viz. INR 20,07,60,746/- and liquidate the said dues immediately. 


# 3. The Respondent No.1 filed affidavit in reply dated February, 2022 stating that an enquiry u/s 7A of the EPF & MP Act 1952 was initiated for the period from 03/2007 to 07/2011 vide summons no. MH/PF/43283/Enf-VIII/RO/KND/3113 dated 04.02.2013 based on default committed by establishment and non-compliance of provisions of EPF & MP Act as per various complaints received and EO report. Later on the enquiry was extended up to 07/2013 vide summons no. MH/43283/Comp-I/RO/KND/1579 dated 26.09.2013 as observed by EO default committed by establishment again. Further, the enquiry was again extended from 08/2013 10 03/2019 Vide no MH/43383/MH/PF Comp-/RO/KND-418 dated 06/12/2019 based on various complaints received in EPF office from employees of establishment and as per EO report duly verifying the records of establishment under which it was found the establishment failed to comply the provisions of EPF & MP Act and made default in remittance of PF contribution of employees, however establishment had deducted PF contribution from employees' salary. In this regard during the default period complaints u/s 406/409 of IPC were also filed with police authorities. An order u/s 7A vide no. MH/43283/comp-I/CIR- 507/RO/KND-II/769 dated 13.12.2019 was passed with assessment of dues for Rs. 10,79,49,882/- for the period 03/2007 to 03/2019. Two order u/s 14B vide dated 13.12.2019 for Rs.4,70,071/- & Rs. 1,06,84,780/- as well as two orders u/s 7Q of the Act dated 13.12.2019 for Rs. 2,21,658/- & Rs. 52,44,363/- for the period from 04/1996 to 10/2019 were also passed by EPFO Authority. 

3.1. During the course of enquiry, it was come to notice that Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was initiated against the establishment vide NCLT order dated 14.12.2018 and CA Devang Sampat was appointed as Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) for doing the task of CIRP. The same process was not informed by establishment representative during enquiry. Accordingly, this office had filed claim in form no. F with IRP on 14.12.2019 for Rs. 12,45,70,754/-(10,79,49,882/-(7A) + Rs. 1,11.54,851/-414B) + Rs. 54,66.021/-(7Q)) and the same was accepted by IRP. 

3.2. Later on the establishment was considered for Liquidation by NCLT vide its order dated 16.12.2020 and Liquidation commencement date of Corporate Debtor was 16.12.2020. A mail dated 29.12.2020 informing to file fresh claim with liquidator by 15.01.2021 has been received from Liquidator Shri Divyesh Desai. Accordingly, this office has filed claim in Form C with supporting orders/records in favour of dues on 14.01.2021 for Rs. 20,07,60,746/- (7A dues for Rs. 11,45,79,863) 14B(Damages) for Rs. 1,11,54,851 & 70 (interest for 08/1996 to 10/2019 for Rs. 54,66,021 & interest accumulated on 7A dues for said period for Rs. 6.95,60,011/-). The total interest dues is of Rs. 7.50.26.032- (RS 11.45.79,863 Rs. 1.11.54,851 Rs. 7.50,26.032 = 20,07,60,746/-) 

3.3. By various emails, Liquidator called clarification regarding Increase in claim amount. Against which this office has aiso sent various mails/letters 11.02.2021, 17.02 2021, 25.03.2021. 05 04 2021, 01.06.2021 28.06.2021, 06.07.2021, 29.07.2021 clarifying in claim amount as 1. There was some error in calculation in 7A dues i.e. Annexure D part, which rectified and issued corrigendum dated 14.01.2021 calculating actual amount for Rs. 11.45.79,863/- instead of Rs. 10,79,49,882/-, 2. Interest calculated on 7A dues for the period 03/2007 to 03/2019 for Rs. 6,95,60,011/- 

3.4. Despite of several times clarifications offered by this office. the EPFO claim was not accepted & kept on evaluation by the Liquidator. 

3.5. 1st stakeholder’s consultation Committee meeting was held on 05.04.2021, therein EPFO participated and clarified its stand and emphasized on PF dues to be paid on priority over other debt & dues as PF dues is statutory dues and have Ist charge over other debt & due as section 11(2) of EPF & MP Act. 2nd Stakeholders consultation Committee meeting was held on 14.05 2021, therein also not informed that whether EPFO claim has been accepted or not except evaluation. Further, 3rd SCC held on 6th July, 2021, 4th SCC on 23rd September, 2021, 5th SCC on 12th November, 2021 & 6th SCC on 30th December, 2021 held. On 6th September, 2021 an email was received from the office of Liquidator evaluating the EPFO dues for Rs. 9,87,66,568 Hence it was not accepted and scheduled a meeting on 04.10.2021 with Liquidator, which was held on 04.10.2021 in Regional PF Office Kandivali-East by discussing EPFO Provisions and status of EPF dues in the matter. It was also requested by Liquidator during meeting to share the dues calculation excel file to cross examination and re- evaluation. Accordingly minutes of meeting held on 04.10.2021 was sent to Liquidator on 06.10.2021 & excel file was shared to him. Thereafter, an email dated 18.11.2021 has been sent by Liquidator to this office evaluating EPFO dues for Rs. 12,97,85,105/- by waiving of Labour charges for Rs. 4.75 Crores and interest thereon and considering EPFO as Unsecured Operational creditor, which is not acceptable. Hence, this office has issued a mail dated 17.12.2021 to Liquidator objecting evaluation of EPFO dues and informed that the evaluated dues is not acceptable. Further it is also requested to liquidate the EPFO dues in full and on priority basis as PF dues have last charge over other debts & dues as per section 11(2) of the EPF & MP Act and it has also been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. 


# 4. Heard the learned Counsel for both sides and perused the materials available on record. 

4.1. It is trite law that PF contributions of the employer and employee which are payable to the employee by the PF department do not form part of liquidation estate and has to be paid to the PF department for onward remission to the concerned employees in priority of all other debt. Accordingly, the Liquidator’s determination of the claim for a sum of Rs. 10,79,49,882/- being the amount of contribution to the Provident Fund included in the said demand of the Respondent is correct and that amount shall be considered falling outside the liquidation estate. The remaining claim of the applicant in so far as it pertains to claim of interest and damages or any other contribution not payable to the employees of the Corporate Debtor by such fund shall be regarded as operational debt due to the statutory authorities and considered accordingly in terms of Section 53 of the Code. 

4.2. Since, the employer and employee contribution to the provident which is payable by the PF department to the concerned employee is held to be outside the liquidation estate, the whole of such amount whether for the period of CIRP or prior to it shall be payable priority over all other claims. The rest of the amounts shall be admitted as unsecured operational debt and be dealt with in accordance with section 53 of the Code. 


# 5. In view of the aforesaid directions, this I.A. 53/2022 is allowed. 

------------------------------------------------ 


Monday, 20 November 2023

Radhakrishnan Dharmarajan, vs Central Board of Trustees, EPF & Anr. - Nevertheless, citing an invalid reason exposes the ignorance of the 1st respondent and non application of mind also. Therefore, I opine that the decision of the 1st respondent which was intimated vide the impugned order issued by the 2nd respondent is liable to be set aside.

 High Court Madras (15.11.2023) in Radhakrishnan Dharmarajan, vs Central Board of Trustees, EPF & Anr. [W.P.No.18328 of 2022] held that;

  • Nevertheless, citing an invalid reason exposes the ignorance of the 1st respondent and non application of mind also. Therefore, I opine that the decision of the 1st respondent which was intimated vide the impugned order issued by the 2nd respondent is liable to be set aside. 


Excerpts of the Order;    

This Writ Petition is filed by the Company Liquidator R. Dharmarajan appointed by National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) for M/s. Flora Footwear Private Limited. It challenges the impugned order dated 23.03.2022 issued by the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation, Regional Office, Chennai, through the 2nd respondent based on the letter dated 08.03.2022 issued by the 1st respondent, Central Board of Trustees, EPF, New Delhi.


# 2. Briefly into the essential facts:

2.1. The Petitioner R.Dharmarajan is the Company Liquidator appointed by NCLT in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process instituted against M/s. Flora Footwear Private Limited whose registered office is in Nungambakkam, Chennai. Two permanent employees D.Arasalingam and G. Sivakumar of the Company moved an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred as "I&B Code 2016") as operational creditors before the NCLT, Chennai Single Bench, which appointed Anandarajan Balaji as Interim Resolution Professional thereby commencing the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process to be completed within 180 days from 02.01.2019, the date of the order in CP/1279/IB/2018 filed by the Operational Creditors. Subsequently, the NCLT Division Bench ordered the liquidation of M/s. Flora Footwear Private Limited and appointed the petitioner R.Dharmarajan as the Company Liquidator in MA/856/2019 filed in CP/1279/IB/2018 vide its orders dated 03.09.2019. A Public announcement was made on 16.09.2019 calling upon claims from all stake holders of M/s. Flora Footwear Private Limited. An e-auction of the key assets of the Company was conducted on 16.10.2020 and sale certificate was issued to the successful bidder, one K.S. Varadaraj of Bangalore. According to the petitioner, though there was no claim from the 2nd respondent for the Employees' Provident Fund dues to the tune of Rs.2,87,28,404/- before him, the latter had submitted the claim to the Insolvency Resolution Professional and it was considered. The break up of the claim amount of Rs.2,87,28,404/- was Rs.1,55,45,088/- principal, including the administration charges, Rs.42,95,456/-, the interest and Rs.88,87,860/- damages. The petitioner, as the Liquidator, paid Rs.1,55,45,088/- and Rs.42,95,456/- but requested for waiver of the damages of Rs.88,87,860/- as the Company itself was under liquidation and the sale proceeds was inadequate. But the 2nd respondent forwarded the request to the 1st respondent, who is the competent authority, who finally decided to reject the request by stating that "request for reduction/waiver of damages can be considered only if an establishment is a sick industrial company and in respect of which a scheme for rehabilitation has been sanctioned by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) established under Section 4 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985". This decision was communicated to the petitioner vide the impugned order dated 23.03.2022 by the 2nd respondent. Challenging the said orders, the present Writ Petition is filed. The contention of the petitioner is that when BIFR itself is no more in existence and I&B Code, 2016 has become the law of the land, the order smacks of ignorance and non application of mind on the part of the 1st respondent. 


# 3. Mr.T. Ravichandran, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the 1st respondent ought to have considered his request for waiver of the damages since that amount would help in settling the dues of employees who have no other alternative to recover their dues. It was further contended by him that Section 14 B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "the EPF & MP Act") very clearly authorises the 1st respondent to waive the damages and it is not as though they cannot do it. His further contention was that with I&B Code replacing BIFR, the relevant section of the EPF & MP Act is not yet revised/amended to match with the present law governing sick companies and therefore the 1st respondent erred in quoting the portion of that Section 14B of the EPF & MP Act to reject the waiver request. He, therefore, prayed for setting aside the impugned order. 


# 4. Per contra Mr.P.K. Panneer Selvam, learned counsel for the respondents would contend that it was a matter of discretion on the part of the respondents to approve or reject any waiver request. He also argued that when the Employees' Provident Fund dues does not come under the purview of liquidation 'water fall', the question of making a claim does not arise. It was also contended that the Provident Fund dues ought to have been kept aside before deciding upon the distribution of the sale proceeds consequent upon the liquidation of the Company and it was the bounden duty of the Liquidator to do this. 


# 5. Section 14(B) of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act reads as below: 14B. Power to recover damages.—Where an employer makes default in the payment of any contribution to the Fund [,the [Pension] Fund or the Insurance Fund] or in the transfer of accumulations required to be transferred by him under sub-section (2) of section 15 4[or subsection (5) of section 17] or in the payment of any charges payable under any other provision of this Act or of 5[any Scheme or Insurance Scheme] or under any of the conditions specified under section 17, the Central Provident Fund Commissioner or such other officer as may be authorised by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, in this behalf] may recover from the employer by way of penalty such damages, not exceeding the amount of arrears, as may be specified in the Scheme:Provided that before levying and recovering such damages, the employer shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard: Provided further that the Central Board may reduce or waive the damages levied under this section in relation to an establishment which is a sick industrial company and in respect of which a scheme for rehabilitation has been sanctioned by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction established under section 4 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (1 of 1986), subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified in the Scheme. This clearly shows that the portion of this Section of the EPF & MP Act has not been updated yet. The Preamble of the I&B Code, 2016 reads as follows: "An Act to consolidate and amend the laws relating to reorganisation and insolvency resolution of corporate persons, partnership firms and individuals in a time bound manner for maximisation of value of assets of such persons, to promote entrepreneurship, availability of credit and balance the interests of all the stakeholders including alteration in the order of priority of payment of Government dues and to establish an Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India, and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. BE it enacted by Parliament in the Sixty-seventh Year of the Republic of India." Pursuant to this, BIFR was dissolved on 01.12.2016 and all proceedings were referred to National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) as per provisions of I&B Code, 2016. 


5.1. In the opinion of this Court, the relevant portion of Section 14B of the EPF & MP Act needs to be updated/amended. However, this Court cannot step into the shoes of the 1st respondent to decide on the waiver and it is the prerogative of the 1st respondent. Nevertheless, citing an invalid reason exposes the ignorance of the 1st respondent and non application of mind also. Therefore, I opine that the decision of the 1st respondent which was intimated vide the impugned order issued by the 2nd respondent is liable to be set aside. Consequently, the matter shall be referred back to the 1st respondent for a fresh assessment in the light of the provision of I&B Code and also exercising the power for waiver of damages as envisaged in Section 14B of the EPF & MP Act. 


# 6. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. The 1st respondent is directed to consider the waiver proposal afresh. The impugned order dated 23.03.2022 in File No.ZACC/7/C-43(5)/2020- PART(1) of the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation, Zonal Office, Chennai, is quashed. 


-------------------------------------------