JUDGMENT 1. - This petition involves a challenge to the order dated, 31.3.92 (Annex. 8) passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Jaipur under section-14B of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short the Act). 2. Facts of the case are that the petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of Railway and automobile components. It has a labour and other staff strength of 310 persons and it is covered by the provisions of the Act. A notice dated, 29.1.92 was issued by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Jaipur calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the damages be not imposed for its failure to comply with the provisions of the Act. Petitioner replied vide letter dated, 22.2.92 by stating that unit has been declared as sick by the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction. It also stated that on account of closure of the unit and subsequent financial difficulties payment of dues could not be made in time. Petitioner made a request for condonation of delay in payment of dues. Thereafter, a notice of hearing dated, 20th February 1992 was given to' the petitioner. Finally impugned order Annexure-8 has been issued for the levy of damages to the tune of Rs. 73,317/-. This amount represents 100% damages on the petitioner. 3. Petitioner has questioned the legality of the order on the ground of non-application of mind by the respondent, arbitrariness and lack of jurisdiction. The petitioner has pleaded that on account of strike and closure of the unit it was impossible to make deposit of the Provident Fund dues within time and further that the dues had in fact been deposited before the initiation of the proceedings under Section of the Act. 4. In reply, the respondent has pleaded that since he is not a party before the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction it is not bound by the proceedings pending before the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction. The respondent has justified the imposition of damages by asserting that it has discretion to impose damages to the extent of 100% in case of delayed payment of dues under the Act. 5. The respondent has justified the imposition of damages by asserting that it has discretion to impose damages to the extent of 100% in case of delayed payment of dues under the Act. 5. Counsel for the parties have advanced a number of arguments in support and in opposition of the writ petition but, in my opinion, it is not necessary to deal with the arguments at length because, I am of the opinion that the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the ground that the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner has not properly appreciated the ambit and the scope of the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provision) Act, 1985. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner has in its impugned order made reference to the arguments of the petitioner about the proceedings pending before the Board of Financial and Industrial Reconstruction but has brushed it aside by observing that the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction has not recommended suspension of the P.F. dues/damages. 6. A look at the documents produced alongwith the writ petition and the averments made in the reply filed by the petitioner to the show cause notice shows that the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction has passed order on 1.10.90 for the appointment of the operating agency under section-17 (3) for preparation of the rehabilitation report. Annexure-2 shows that the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction has applied its mind to the state of affairs in the company and has thought it proper to invoke its power under Section-17. Section 22 (1) of 1985 Act contains a non-obstante clause. Similarly, section-32 of 1985 Act contains a non-obstante clause. Ambit and scope of this provision has been considered by me in Union of India v. M/s Krishna Mills Ltd. Beawarl (S.B. Civil Petition No. 6/91 and it has been held as under : (1) that the provisions of 1985 Act are special provisions qua the Companies Act, 1956 and, therefore, the former shall prevail over the latter in case of inconsistency. (2) Non-obstante clauses contained in Sections-22 (1) and 32 (1) of 1985 Act shall prevail over non-obstante clause contained in Section A of the Companies Act, 1956. (2) Non-obstante clauses contained in Sections-22 (1) and 32 (1) of 1985 Act shall prevail over non-obstante clause contained in Section A of the Companies Act, 1956. (3) A petition for winding up filed against a company shall not be treated as abated on the ground of initiation of action under sections-16, 17 and 18 or on account of pendency of appeal under section 25 of the 1985 Act. Such proceedings shall however, be consigned to record and shall not be proceeded with further till the conclusion of the proceedings under 1985 Act. However, it shall be open to the applicant to continue/revive the proceedings with the permission of the Board. Likewise, it shall be open to the applicant to seek revival after the proceedings under 1985 Act have concluded." The same very question has been examined by the Supreme Court in Maharashtra Tubes Ltd. v. State Industrial and Investment Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. ( 1993 (2) SCC 144 . The Supreme Court has held that non-obstante clause contained in Section (1) of 1985 Act prevails over similar non-obstante clauses contained in the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951. 7. What is the scope and ambit of the provisions of 1985 Act qua the provisions of the Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 has not at all been examined by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. I, therefore, consider it proper to quash the impugned order and remand the case to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner for a fresh decision in accordance with law. 8. The writ petition is allowed. Order Annexure-8 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Jaipur under section B of the Act is set aside. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner should decide the matte afresh after hearing the parties in the light of the observations made hereinabove.Petition allowed. *******