# 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 336 EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER v. O.L. OF ESSKAY PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED - **Citation:** [2011] 15 S.C.R. 336 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 2011-11-08 - **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 9630 OF 2011 - **Bench:** G. S. Singhvi, H. L. Dattu - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/15-addl-s-c-r-336-employees-provident-fund-commissioner-v-o-l-of-esskay-27598 - **Pages:** 50 ## Headnote Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952: Object of its enactment - Discussed. s.11(2) - Priority of payment of contributions over other debts - Non-obstante clauses contained in s. 11 (2) of the EPF Act and s.529A of the Companies Act - Interpretation of the D provisions - Held: By virtue of non-obstante clause contained in s. 11 (2) of the EPF Act, any amount due from an employer is deemed to be first charge on the assets of the establishment and is payable in priority to all other debts including the debts due to a bank, which falls in the category E of the secured creditors - It cannot be said that the nonobstante clause contained in subsequent legislation i.e. s.529A(1) of the Companies Act prevails over the similar clause contained in s. 11 (2) of the EPF Act - While inserting s.529A in the Companies Act, Parliament, in its wisdom, did F not declare the workmen's dues (which inC!udes various dues including provident fund) as first charge - The effect of the amendment is only to expand the scope of the dues of workmen and place them at par with the debts due to secured creditors and there is no reason to interpret this amendment G as giving priority to the debts due to secured creditor over the dues of provident fund payable by an employer - Of course, after the amount due from an employer unde1 the EPF Act is paid, the other dues of the workers will be treated at par with the debts due to secured creditors and payment thereof will H 336 EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND COMMNR. v. O.L. OF 337 ESSKAY PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. be regulated by the provisions contained in s.529(1) read with A s.529(3), 529A and 530 of the Companies Act - Companies Act, 1956 - s. 529A. Companies Act, 1956: ss.529, 530 (as amended) and s.529A - Interpretation of 8 - Held: By Companies (Amendment) Act, 1985, proviso was q_dded to s.529(1) - By the same amendment, ss.529(3) and 529A were inserted - Simultaneously, the expression "subject to the provisions of s.529A" was inserted in s.530(1) - The object of the amendments was to ensure that the legitimate C dues of workers should rank pari passu with those of secured creditors - What Parliament has done by these amendments is to define the term "workmen's dues" and to place them at par with debts due to secured creditors to the extent such debts rank under clause (c) of the proviso to s.529(1) - However, D these amendments, though subsequent in point of time, cannot be interpreted in a manner which would result in diluting the mandate of s. 11 of the EPF Act - Interpretation of statutes - Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. E s.529(1), proviso - Object of- Discussed. Interpretation of statutes: Contextual interpretation - Held: It is a well recognized F rule of interpretatior. that every part of the statute must be interpreted keeping in view the context in which it appears and the purpose of legislation - Another rule of interpretation of statutes is that if two special enactments contain provisions which give overriding effect to the provisions contained G therein, then the Court is required to consider the purpose and the policy underlying the two Acts and the clear intendment conveyed by the lang1,1age of the relevant provisions. Social welfare legislation - Interpretation of - Held: A legislation made for the benefit of workers must receive a H 338 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A liberal and purposive interpretation keeping in view the Directive Principles of State Policy contained in Articles 38 and 43 of the Constitution - Constitution of India, 1950 - Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. B Non-obstante clause - lnterpretarion of. Words and phrases: Expression 'workmen dues' - Meaning of, in the context c of s.529(3)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956. The question which arose for consideration in these appeals was whether priority given to the dues payable by an employer under Section 11 of the Employees' ## Text _Characters 0–38,967 of 94,456. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=38967 for what follows._ A B c (2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 336 EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER v. O.L. OF ESSKAY PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED (Civil Appeal No. 9630 OF 2011) NOVEMBER 8, 2011 [G. S. SINGHVI AND H. L. DATTU, JJ.] Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952: Object of its enactment - Discussed. s.11(2) - Priority of payment of contributions over other debts - Non-obstante clauses contained in s. 11 (2) of the EPF Act and s.529A of the Companies Act - Interpretation of the D provisions - Held: By virtue of non-obstante clause contained in s. 11 (2) of the EPF Act, any amount due from an employer is deemed to be first charge on the assets of the establishment and is payable in priority to all other debts including the debts due to a bank, which falls in the category E of the secured creditors - It cannot be said that the nonobstante clause contained in subsequent legislation i.e. s.529A(1) of the Companies Act prevails over the similar clause contained in s. 11 (2) of the EPF Act - While inserting s.529A in the Companies Act, Parliament, in its wisdom, did F not declare the workmen's dues (which inC!udes various dues including provident fund) as first charge - The effect of the amendment is only to expand the scope of the dues of workmen and place them at par with the debts due to secured creditors and there is no reason to interpret this amendment G as giving priority to the debts due to secured creditor over the dues of provident fund payable by an employer - Of course, after the amount due from an employer unde1 the EPF Act is paid, the other dues of the workers will be treated at par with the debts due to secured creditors and payment thereof will H 336 EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND COMMNR. v. O.L. OF 337 ESSKAY PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. be regulated by the provisions contained in s.529(1) read with A s.529(3), 529A and 530 of the Companies Act - Companies Act, 1956 - s. 529A. Companies Act, 1956: ss.529, 530 (as amended) and s.529A - Interpretation of 8 - Held: By Companies (Amendment) Act, 1985, proviso was q_dded to s.529(1) - By the same amendment, ss.529(3) and 529A were inserted - Simultaneously, the expression "subject to the provisions of s.529A" was inserted in s.530(1) - The object of the amendments was to ensure that the legitimate C dues of workers should rank pari passu with those of secured creditors - What Parliament has done by these amendments is to define the term "workmen's dues" and to place them at par with debts due to secured creditors to the extent such debts rank under clause (c) of the proviso to s.529(1) - However, D these amendments, though subsequent in point of time, cannot be interpreted in a manner which would result in diluting the mandate of s. 11 of the EPF Act - Interpretation of statutes - Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. E s.529(1), proviso - Object of- Discussed. Interpretation of statutes: Contextual interpretation - Held: It is a well recognized F rule of interpretatior. that every part of the statute must be interpreted keeping in view the context in which it appears and the purpose of legislation - Another rule of interpretation of statutes is that if two special enactments contain provisions which give overriding effect to the provisions contained G therein, then the Court is required to consider the purpose and the policy underlying the two Acts and the clear intendment conveyed by the lang1,1age of the relevant provisions. Social welfare legislation - Interpretation of - Held: A legislation made for the benefit of workers must receive a H 338 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A liberal and purposive interpretation keeping in view the Directive Principles of State Policy contained in Articles 38 and 43 of the Constitution - Constitution of India, 1950 - Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. B Non-obstante clause - lnterpretarion of. Words and phrases: Expression 'workmen dues' - Meaning of, in the context c of s.529(3)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956. The question which arose for consideration in these appeals was whether priority given to the dues payable by an employer under Section 11 of the Employees' D Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (EPF Act) is subject to Section 529A of the Companies Act, 1956 in terms of which the workmen's dues and debts due to secured creditors are required to be paid in priority to all other debts. E Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. An analysis of Section 11 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 shows that it gives statutory priority to the amount F payable to the employees over other debts. Section 11(1) relates to an employer who is adjudged insolvent or being a company against whom an order of winding up is made. It lays down that the amount due from the employer in respect of any contribution payable to the Fund or, as the case may be, the Insurance Fund, G damages recoverable under Section 148, accumulations required to be transferred under Section 15(2) or any charges payable by him under any other provision of the Act or the Scheme or the Insurance Scheme shall be paid in priority to all other debts in the distribution of the H EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND COMMNR. v. O.L. OF 339 ESSKAY PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. property of the insolvent or the assets of the company A being wound up, as the case may be. Section 11 (2) contains a non obstante clause and lays down that if any amount is due from an employer whether in respect of the employee's contribution deducted from the wages of the employees or the employer's contribution, the same B shall be deemed to. be the first charge on the assets of· the establishment and shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, be paid in priority to all other debts. To put it differently, subsection (2) of Section 1! not only declares that the c amount due from an employer towards contribution payable under the EPF Act shall be treated as the first charge on the assets of the establishment, but also lays down that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, such dues shall be paid in priority to all other 0 debts. [Para 18] [354-G-H; 355-A-D] 2. The Companies Act. Part VII of the Companies Act, which consists of 5 Chapters contains provisions relating to winding up of a company. The provisions contained in Chapter V (Sections 528 to 560), which deal with proof E and ranking of claims are applicable to every mode of winding up. Section 528 lays down that in every winding up, all debts payable on a contingency, and all claims against the company, present or future, certain or contingent, ascertained or sounding only in damages, F shall be admissible to proof against the company. This is subject to the rider that in the case of insolvent companies, law of insolvency will be applicable in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act. Section 529 deals with application of insolvency rules in G winding up of insolvent companies. Section 530, as it existed prior to the amendment of the Companies Act by Act No.35 of 1985, gave priority to revenue of the State and local authorities and various amounts payable to H 340 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R A employees including the dues payable from a provident fund, a pension fund, a gratuity fund or any other fund maintained by the company for the welfare of the employees. By the Companies (Amendment) Act No.35 of 1985, proviso was added to Section 529(1). By the s same amendment, Sections 529(3) and 529A were inserted in the Companies Act. Simultaneously, the expression "subject to the provisions of Section 529A" was inserted in Section 530(1). By inserting proviso in Section 529(1 ), Parliament ensured protection of the c interest of the workmen in winding up proceedings. The object of this amendment is to place the legitimate dues of workers at par with those of secured creditors. This is also a legislative recognition of the fact that the workmen contribute to the growth of the capital and D industry and in the event of winding up of the company, they are entitled to get their legitimate share in the assets of the company by being treated at par with other secured creditors. With the insertion of Section 529(3)(a), the definition of the term ·workmen' contained in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been incorporated in the E Companies Act for the purposes of Sections 529, 529A and 530. The expression "workmen's dues" has been defined in Section 529(3)(b) to mean all wages or salary including wages payable for time or piece work and salary earned wholly or in part by way of commission of F any workman in respect of services rendered to the company and any compensation payable to any workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, all accrued holiday remuneration payable to any workman, or in the case of his death to any other person in his right G upon the termination of his employment before the passing of winding up order and all sums due to any workman from a provident fund, a pension fund, a gratuity fund or any other fund for the welfare of the workmen, which is maintained by the company. The H EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND COMMNR. It O.L. OF 341 ESSKAY PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. definition also takes within its fold funds capable of being A transferred to and vested in the workman under a contract with insurers under Section 14 of the Workmen's Compensation Act as also the amounts due in respect of any compensation or liability for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act in respect of the death or B disablement of any workman of the company. By virtue of the non obstante clause contained in sub-section (1) of Section 529A, statutory priority has been given to the workmen's dues and debts due to secured creditors over all other dues. [Paras 19, 21) [355-E-H; 356-A-B; 360-C- c H; 361-A] Organo Chemical Industries v. Union of India (1979) 4 SCC 573: 1974 (3) SCR 813; Central Bank of India v. State of Kera/a (2009) 4 SCC 94: 2009 (3) SCR 735; Builders Supply Corporation v. Union of India (1965) 2 SCR 289; State D Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. National lrori and Steel Rolling Corporation (1995) 2 SCC 19: 1994 (6) Suppl. SCR 566; Dena Bank v. Bhikhabhai Prabhudas Parekh & Co. (2000) 5 SCC 694: 2000 (3) SCR 50; State of M.P. v. State Bank of Indore (2002) 10 SCC 441 - relied on. E 3. The EPF Act is a social welfare legislation intended to protect the interest of a weaker sec~ion of the society, i.e. the workers employed in factories and other establishments, who have made significant contribution F in economic growth of the country. The workers and o~her employees provide services of different kinds and ensure continuous production of goods, which are made available to the society at large. Therefore, a legislation made for their benefit must receive a liberal and G purposive interpretation keeping in view the Directive Principles of State Policy contained in Articles 38 and 43 of the Constitution. [Para 22) (361-8-E] 4. The object of the amendments made in the Companies Act by. Act No. 35 of 1985 was to ensure that H 342 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R A the legitimate dues of workers should rank pari passu with those of secured creditors. In other words, these amendments are intended to protect the interest of the workmen in winding up proceedings by placing them at par with secured creditors and a statutory charge is B created qua their dues on all available securities forming part of the assets of the company in liquidation. There is nothing in the language of Section 529A which may give an indication that legislature wanted to create first charge in respect of the workmen's dues, as defined in Sections c 529(3)(b) and 529A and debts due to the secured creditors. [Paras 35-36] [379-G-H; 380-A-F] 5. It is a well recognized rule of interpretation that every part of the statute must be interpreted keeping in view the context in which it appears and the purpose of D legislation. Another rule of interpretation of Statutes is that if two special ehactments contain provisions which give overriding effect to the provisions contained therein, then the Court is required to consider the purpose and the policy underlying the two Acts and the clear intendment E conveyed by the language of the relevant provisions. [Paras 37-38] [380-G-H; 381-A-F] RBI v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. (1987) 1 SCC 424: 1987 (2) SCR 1; Shri Ram Narain v. F Sim/a Banking and Industrial Co. Ltd. 1956 SCR 603; Kumaon Motor Owners' Union Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1966) 2 SCR 121; Ashok Marketing Limited v. Punjab National Bank (1990) 4 SCC 406: 1990 (3) SCR 649 - relied on. G 6. Even before the insertion of proviso to Sections 529(1 ), 529(3) and Section 529A and amendment of Section 530(1), all sums due to any employee from a provident fund, a pension fund, a gratuity fund or any other fund established for welfare of the employees were H payable in priority to all other debts in a winding up EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND COMMNR. v. O.L. OF 343 ESSKAY PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. proceedings [Section 530(1)(f)]. Even the wages, salary A and other dues payable to the workers and employees were payable in priority to all other debts. What Parliament has done by these amendments is to define the term "workmen's dues" and to place them at par with debts due to secured creditors to the extent such debts B rank under clause (c) of the proviso to Section 529(1 ). However, these amendments, though subsequent in point of time, cannot be interpreted in a manner which would result in diluting the mandate of Section 11 of the EPF Act, sub-section (2) whereof declares that the c amount due from an employer shall be the first charge on the assets of the establishment and shall be paid in priority to all other debts. The words "all other debts" used in Section 11 (2) would necessarily include the debts due to secured creditors like banks, financial 0 institutions etc. The mere ranking of the dues of workers at par with debts due to secured creditors cannot lead to an inferl:!nce that Parliament intended to create first charge in favour of the secured creditors and give priority to the debts due to secured creditors over the amount due from the employer under the EPF Act. Therefore, in E terms of Section 530(1), all revenues, taxes, cesses and rates due from the company to the Central or State Government or to a local authority, all wages or salary or any employee, in respect of the services rendered to the company and due for a period not exceeding 4 months F all accrued holiday remuneration etc. and all sums due to any employee from provident fund, a pension fund, a gratuity fund or any other fund for the welfare of the employees maintained by the company are payable in priority to all other debts. This provision existed when G Section 11 (2) was inserted in the EPF Act by Act No. 40 of 1973 and any amount due from an employer in respect of the employees' contribution was declared first charge on the assets of the establishment and became payable in priority to all other debts. However, while inserting H 344 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A Section 529A in the Companies Act by Act No.35 of 1985 Parliament, in its wisdom, did not declare the workmen's dues (this expression includes various dues including provident fund) as first charge. The effect of the amendment made in the Companies Act in 1985 is only B to expand the scope of the dues of workmen and place them at par with the debts due to secured creditors and there is no reason to interpret this amendment as giving priority to the debts due to secured creditor over the dues of provident fund payable by an employer. Of course, C after the amount due from an employer under the EPF Act is paid, the other dues of the workers will be treated at par with the debts due to secured creditors and payment thereof will be regulated by the provisions contained in Section 529(1) read with Section 529(3), 529A and 530 of 0 the Companies Act. [paras 42, 43] [383-C-H; 384-A-E] Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (2009) 10 SCC 123: 2009 (15) SCR 1; Maharashtra Tubes Ltd. v. State Industrial and Investment Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. (1993) ·2 SCC E 144: 1993 (1) SCR 340; Recovery Officer and Asstt. Provident Fund Commissioner v. Kera/a Financial Corporation ILR (2002) 3 Kerala; Allahabad Bank v. Canara Bank (2000) 4 sec 406: 2000 (2) SCR 1102 UCO Bank v. Official Liquidator, High Court of Bombay (1994) 5 SCC 1: F 1994 (1) Suppl. SCR 294; A.P. State Financial Corporation v. Official Liquidator (2000) 7 SCC 291: 2000 (2) Suppl. SCR 288 Textile Labour Association v. Official Liquidator (2004) 9 sec 741: 2004 (3) SCR 1161; /CIC/ Bank Ltd. v. S/DCO Leathers Ltd. (2006) 10 sec 452: 2006 (1) Suppl. SCR 528; G Rajasthan State Financial Corporation v. Official Liquidator (2005) 8 sec 190: 2005 (3) Suppl. SCR 1073; UCO Bank v. Official Liquidator, High Court, Bombay (1994) 5 SCC 1: 1994 (1) Suppl. SCR 294- referred. to. H EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND COMMNR. v. O.L. OF 345 ESSKAY PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. Case Law Reference: A 2009 (15) SCR 1 referretl to Para 11 1993 (1) SCR 340 referred to Para 12 1974 (3) SCR 813 . relied on Para 22 B ILR (2002) 3 Kerala 4 referred to Paras 23, 28 2009 (3) SCR 735 relied on Para 24 (1965) 2 SCR 289 relied on Para 25 c 1994 (6) Suppl. SCR 566 relied on Paras 26, 27, 28 2000 (3) SCR 50 relied on Paras 26, 27, 28 D (2002) 10 sec 441 relied on. Paras 26, 27, 28 2000 (2) SCR 1102 referred to Paras 28, 32, 33,34 E 1994 (1) Suppl. SCR 294 referred to Paras 29, 31 2000 (2) Suppl. SCR 288 referred to Paras 29 31, 34 2004 (3) SCR 1161 referred to Paras 29, 31 F 2006 (1) Suppl. SCR 528 referred to Paras 29, 33 2005 (3) Suppl. SCR 1073 referred to Para 33 1994 (1) Suppl. SCR 294 referred to Paras 29, 31 G 1987 (2) SCR 1 relied on Para 37 1956 SCR 603 relied on Para 39 (1966) 2 SCR 121 relied on Para 40 H A 346 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1990 (3) SCR 649 relied on Para 41 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9630 of 2011. From the Judgment & Order dated 18.9.2008 of the High B Court of Gujarat in O.J. Appeal No. 269 of 20Q7 in Company Application No. 370 of 2007. c D WITH C.A. Nos. 9632, 9631 & 9633 of 2011. Aparna Bhat, P. Ramesh Kumar for the Appellant. Gaurav Agrawal for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by G.S. SINGHVI, J. 1. Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted. E 3. The question which arises for consideration in these appeals is whether priority given to the dues payable by an employer under Section 11 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short, 'the EPF Act') is subject to SectjOn 529A of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Companies Act') in terms of which the workmen's F dues and debts due to secured creditors are required to be paid in priority to all other debts. 4. For the sake of convenience, we have culled out the facts from the record of the appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. G 7642/2011. H 5. Messrs Esskay Pharmaceuticals Limited is a company registered under the Companies Act. It falls within the definition of 'employer' under Section :2(e) of the EPF Act. On account EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND COMMNR. v. O.L. OF 347 ESSKAY PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.) of the company's failure to pay the dues under the EPF Act for A the periods from March 1998 to May 1999 and June 1999 to August 2001, the competent authority passed two orders under Section 7A of the EPF Act and held that it'was liable to pay Rs.14,96,751/-. The company appears to have paid a sum of Rs.4,02,126/- but did notpay the remaining amount despite the B issue of demand notices dated 12.4.2001 and 19.4.2001 by the competent authority. The orders passed under Section BF of the EPF Act, which were communicated to the bankers of the company also did not yield the desired result. The competent authority then issued warrant for attachment of the c company's property. This was followed by sale notice dated 20.9.2001. 6. Although, it is not clear from the record as to what happened to the sale notice, but this much is evident that after 2 years and about 4 months, the Enforcement Officer informed D the appellant that the Gujarat High Court has passed order dated 11.3.2004 for winding up of the company and appointed Official Liquidator to look after its properties and clear the debts. The appellant then approached the Official Liquidator for payment of the amount determined under Section 7A of the E EPF Act, but the latter did not give any response. 7. Company Application No. 356/2007 filed by the appellant for issue of a direction to the Official Liquidator to pay the amount payable by the employer under the EPF Act was F dismissed by the learned Company Judge by relying upon the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in Company Application No. 216 of 1997 in Company Petition No.205 of 1996 and order dated 31.8.2005 passed in Company Application No.195 of 2005 - Regional Provident G Commis3ioner-I v. M.A. Kuvadia, O.L. and others. 8. The appellant challenged the order of the learned Company Judge· by filing an appeal but could not convince the. Division Bench of the High Court to entertain his plea that the amount due from the employer is first charge on the assets of H 348 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A the company and is payable in priority to all other dues. The Division Bench relied upon the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench and held that the learned Company Judge did not commit any error by dismissing the application filed by the appellant. · B 9. Since the impugned judgment and the order passed by the learned· Company Judge are entirely based on the order passed by another Division Bench in Company Application No. 216/1997 in Company Petition No. 205/1996, it will be appropriate to notice the ratio of that order. The same is as C under: · D E F G H "Section-530, Sub-section (1 ), clearly observes that in a winding up matter, subject to the provisions of Section529(A), there shall be paid in priority to all other debts, dues of the Government, which are in the form of revenues, tax, etc. When Section-530 is made subordinate to Section-529(A), then, a Court is obliged to look into the material provisions as contained under Seclion-529(A). Section-529(A) clearly provides chat notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisicm of the Companies Act or any other law for the time being in force, in the winding up of a company, workmen's dues and debts due to the secured creditors to the extent such debts ;ank under clause (c) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section-529 pari passu with such dues, shall be paid in priority to all other debts. Section-529(A) has been introduced in the year 1985. It starts with a non-obstante clause. It clearly provides that "notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of the Act or any other law for the •ime being in force". A true understanding of Section-529(A) would make clear that the provisions of Section-529(A) shall override the provisions contained in Seclion-530. Not only this, the provisions contained in Section-529(A) shall override th~ provisions contained in the ESI Act because the ESI Ac.;! EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND COMMNR. v. O.L. OF 349 ESSKAY PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.] is an Act of 1948, while the amendment in the Companies A. Act has been made in the year 1985 and with the fullest knowledge that it was to override the provisions contained in Section-530. If Section-94 of the ESI Act and Section530 of the Companies Act are made subordinate to Section-529(A), then, Section-529(A) shall march over the B rights of others to which the others are entitled either under the special laws or under Section-530 of the Companies Act. A combined/conjoint reading of Section-529(A) of the Companies Act would make clear that in a matter of winding up, the workmen's dues and the debts due to the c secured creditors to the extent such debts rank under clause (c) of the proviso to Sub-section (I) of Section529(A) pari passu with such dues, shall be paid in priority to all other debts. If such dues and debts are paid in full and even thereafter, some money is left with the Official D Liquidator f~r its distribution, then, such money can .be distributed under Section-530 of the Companies Act. When such a situation crops up, the State Government or the Central Government of the Local Authority may file their claim before the learned Company Judge and at that point E of time, they may say that in view of their preferential right, either under the Local Act or under Section-530 of the Companies Act, they be paid." 10. The factual matrix of the other appeals is more or less similar. In all the cases, applications filed by the appellant for F payment of the amount due from the employer were dismissed by the learned Company Judge and the appeals were dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court . .. 11. Ms. Aparna Bhat, learned counsel for the appellant G relied upon the judgment in Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (2009) 10 sec 123 and argued that the impugned judgment. and the order of the learned Company Judge are liable to be set aside because the High Court's interpretation of Section 11 of the H 350 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A EPF Act is contrary to the law laid down by this Court. She submitted that even though Section 529A of the Companies Act also contains a non obstante clause, the provisions contained therein cannot override Section 11 (2) of the EPF Act in terms of which the amount due from an employer in respect of the s employees contribution is treated as first charge on the assets of the company and is payable in priority to all other debts. Ms. Bhat further argued that the EPF Act is a special legislation for institution of various types of funds and the schemes and in view of the non obstante clause contained in Section 11 (2), priority c given to the dues payable by an employer will prevail over the priority given under Section 529A of the Companies Act to the· workmen's dues and debts due to secured creditors. 12. Shri Gaurav Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No.1 supported the impugned judgment and argued that the D statutory priority given to the dues of the employees under Section 11 (2) of the EPF Act cannot override the priority ·given to the dues of workers and secured creditors under Section 529A(1) of the Companies Act because Parliament had inserted that section in the Companies Act with effect from E 24.5.1995 knowing fully well priority given to the dues of the employees under the EPF Act. He further argued that the non obstante clause contained in the subsequent legislation, i.e. Section 529A (1) of the Companies Act would prevail over similar clause contained in the earlier legis'ation, i.e. Section F 11 (2) of the EPF Act. In support of this argument, Shri Agrawal relied upon the judgment of this Court in Maharashtra Tubes Ltd. v. State Industrial and Investment Corporation of , Maharashtra Ltd. (1993) 2 SCC 144. G 13. We have considered the respective arguments. For deciding the question arising in these appeals, it will be useful to notice the relevant statutory provisions. The EPF Act H 14. Section 11 (unamended) of the EPF Act was as under: EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND COMMNR. v. O.L. OF 351 ESSKAY PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.] "11. Priority of payment of contributions over other A debts.- Where any employer is adjudicated insolvent or, being a company, an order for winding up is made, the amount due- (