Order The petitioner, a registered Trade Union of the employees of S. K. G. Sugar Mill, since taken over and under the control and management of the Bihar State Sugar Corporation Limited, an undertaking of the Government of Bihar, seeks direction to the respondents-State of Bihar, Sugar Corporation and its officials to deposit to the employees of the Mill for the periods from June, 1983 to June, 1984, September, 1984 to November, 1984 and March, 1985 to April, 1985 with the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Patna. 2. S. K. G. Sugar Mills at Hathwa in the District of Gopalganj was under the control of S. K. G. Limited a private limited company prior to 21.10.1985. According to the petitioner, the management of the Mill had deducted the employees' contribution from their wages as provided under the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 for the periods in question but failed to deposit the same with the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. In the year 1985 the State of Bihar took over the Sugar Mill under the Bihar Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition) Act, 1985 (Bihar Act 12/1985) and handed over its management to the Bihar State Sugar Corporation. The petitioner-Union made several representations before the respondent for depositing the amount deducted from the employees' salary along with the amount of their own contribution with the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner but to no avail. It is not necessary to state the facts relating to representations said to have been filed by the petitioner for disposal of this writ petition. It is stated that the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bihar vide his letter no. 2094 dated 15.11.90 informed the Bihar State Sugar Corporation that the Unit has not deposited the dues amounting to Rs. 11, 45, 616. 95 paise pertaining to pre-take over period despite several Inspections and reminders. It is said that till date no action has been taken by the respondent to deposit the amount. 3. According to the respondent Sugar Corporation, In view of the provisions of Section 4 (4) (i) of the Bihar Sugar Undertaking (Acquisition) Act every liability of scheduled undertaking in respect of the period prior to the appointed day shall be the liability of the respective company owning the scheduled undertaking and shall be enforceable against such Company and not against the State Government/Corporation. 4. 4. S. K. G. Sugar Ltd. does not deny its liability to pay the amount of employees' contribution deducted from their salary as well as their own contribution to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. According to it, however, the amount of unpaid Provident Fund contribution is to be paid from the amount of compensation payable to the ex-Management. The petitioner-Union should, therefore, file its claim in this regard before the prescribed authority appointed under Section 7 of the Bihar Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition) Act, namely, the Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar. In support of the contention reliance has been placed on M/s Gaya Cotton & Jute Mills Vs. Union of India, 1988 PLJR 50 and S.K.G. Sugar Limited Vs. The State of Bihar, 1995 (2) PLJR 679 . Reliance has also been placed in this regard on an unreported Bench order in CWJC No. 1881 of 1991 (D. Chatterjee vs. The State of Bihar) disposed of on 16.3.91. Reference has also been made to the case of State of Mizoram vs. Biakchhawna, (1995) 1 SCC 156 in support of the proposition that where statute requires action to be taken in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner. 5. Counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, has placed reliance on an unreported Bench order in CWJC No. 7159 of 1991 (Mazdoor Sangh, SKG Sugar Mills, Loria, West Champaran Vs. The State of Bihar) disposed of on 13.1.94, wherein, while dealing with the case of the same Company a direction has been issued to its Management to deposit the total amount of Provident Fund for the period in question with interest with the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bihar. According to the counsel for the respondent-Company, the aforesaid decision in C.W.J.C. No. 7159/1991 does not lay down any law, it is merely an order without taking note of the relevant provision of the Bihar Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition) Act and the decisions on the point. The order, therefore, has no precedential value. 6. It would be appropriate at this stage to refer to the relevant provisions of the Bihar Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition) Act, 1985 as hereunder. 7. The aforesaid Act was enacted, as is evident from its long preamble, to provide for acquisition and transfer of the right, title and interest in respect of the scheduled sugar mills etc. and for the matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. 7. The aforesaid Act was enacted, as is evident from its long preamble, to provide for acquisition and transfer of the right, title and interest in respect of the scheduled sugar mills etc. and for the matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Section 3 of the Act provides that on the appointed day the scheduled undertaking specified in the First Schedule shall stand and be deemed to have stood transferred to and vest and be deemed to have vested in the State of Bihar free from all encumberances together with all the assets, rights, lease holds, powers, authorities and privileges, all property movable and immovable, including lands, buildings, workshops, stores, instruments, machinery and equipments, cash balance etc. Under sub-sec. (2) of Section 3 the State Government may, if it is satisfied, direct that the right, title and interest instead of continuing to vest in the State Government, vest in the Bihar State Sugar Corporation, a Govt. Company within the meaning of Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956. 8. Sub-section (4) of Section 4 which is relevant to the point at issue in this case, so far as relevant may be quoted in extenso as follows :- "(4) (i) Every liability of the scheduled undertaking in respect of any period prior to the appointed day shall be the liability of the respective company owning the scheduled undertaking and shall be enforceable against such Company and not against the State Government/Corporation : (ii) For removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that, save as otherwise expressly provided in this section or in any other section of this Act— (a) No liability of the scheduled undertaking in respect of any period prior to the appointed day, shall be enforceable against the State Government/Corporation as the case may be; (b) .... (c) No liability Incurred before the appointed day by the scheduled undertaking for contravention of any provision of law for the time being in force shall be enforceable against the State Government/Corporation as the case may be; (d) .... (e)......... Section 7 of the Act which is also relevant to the point at issue may be quoted in extenso as hereunder :- "7. Amount to be paid for acquisition. (e)......... Section 7 of the Act which is also relevant to the point at issue may be quoted in extenso as hereunder :- "7. Amount to be paid for acquisition. - (1) The State Government shall by way of compensation for acquisition of the scheduled undertaking pay the amount by which the book value of the assets of the undertaking as determined by the prescribed authority appointed by the Government exceeds Its depreciation : Provided that the State Government shall have right to get the financial positions of the concerned undertakings audited in a proper manner and realise from any officer, Director or Manager of such undertaking who may be found to have misappropriated any sum as revealed by such audit. (2) The liability of the scheduled undertaking in respect of the period prior to the appointed day shall be met, in accordance with the rights and Interests or the conditions of the respective undertaking from the amount payable as compensation as determined under sub-section (1) and shall be limited to the amount of compensation so determined. (3) The claims arising out of the matter specified in the second schedule shall have priorities in accordance with the following principles, namely : (a) Category I shall have precedence over all categories and category II shall have precedence over category III and so on; (b) Claims specified in each of the categories except Category IV shall rank equally and be paid in full, but if the amount is insufficient to meet such claims in full. they shall abate in equal proportion and be paid accordingly; (c) The liabilities specified in category IV shall be discharged subject to the priorities specified in this section in accordance with the terms of the secured loan and the priority inter se of such loans; and, (d) The question of discharge of any liability with regard to a matter specified in a lower category shall arise only if a surplus is left after meeting all the liablilities specified in the immediately higher category." 9. Section 8 authorises the State Government to appoint an officer not below the rank of Commissioner to perform the functions of the prescribed authority under the Act or the rules made thereunder. 10. From a combined reading of the aforesaid provisions it is evident that the Undertakings in questions vest in the State Government/Sugar Corporation free from all encumberances. Section 8 authorises the State Government to appoint an officer not below the rank of Commissioner to perform the functions of the prescribed authority under the Act or the rules made thereunder. 10. From a combined reading of the aforesaid provisions it is evident that the Undertakings in questions vest in the State Government/Sugar Corporation free from all encumberances. And so far as the liability of the scheduled undertaking for the pre-vesting period is concerned, it is to be borne by the repective Company owning the undertaking and not by the State Government or the Sugar Corporation. The Company however is entitled to compensation to be determined in the manner laid down under Section 7. The liability of the undertaking in respect of the period prior to the vesting/take-over is to be met in accordance with rights and interest or the conditions of the respective undertaking from the amount payable as compensation so determined subject to the priorities as laid down in Sections 7(3) with respect to the claims set out in S6cond Schedule. 11. It is not in dispute that the Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar has since been appointed as prescribed authority. It is also not in dispute that the amount of compensation to be paid for acquisition of the undertaking in question has not been determined by the prescribed authority till date nor any payment has been made to the Company, i.e. S. K. G. Sugar Limited in this regard. 12. In S.K.G. Sugar Ltd. vs. State of Bihar (supra) a certificate proceeding for recovery of sales tax dues payable for the pre-vesting/take-over period was initiated by the Certificate Officer, Siwan. The Company, took the stand that in view of the provisions of Section 7 of the Bihar Sugar Undertaking (Acquisition) Act the dues in question cannot be recovered through a certificate proceeding. On behalf of the State an argument was made that the State Govt. cannot be compelled to adopt the procedure laid down under Section 7(3) of the Act and it is at liberty to opt for other mode of realisation in accordance with the provisions of the Bihar Public Demand Recovery Act. In other words, the provisions of the Bihar Sugar Undertaking (Acquisition) Act do not oust the jurisdiction of the Certificate Officer under the Public Demand Recovery Act. In other words, the provisions of the Bihar Sugar Undertaking (Acquisition) Act do not oust the jurisdiction of the Certificate Officer under the Public Demand Recovery Act. This Court held that the Bihar Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition) Act is a special Act, laying down complete machinery for enforcement of liability, and the Certificate Officer while exercising jurisdiction under the Bihar Public Demand Recovery Act cannot act unless something is left to be done under the provisions of the Bihar Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition) Act. In the unreported case of D. Chaterjee vs. State of Bihar (supra) also the Bench appears to have taken similar view while considering the maintainability of the certificate proceeding for recovery of the dues from the scheduled undertaking. 13. In M/s Gaya Cotton & Jute Mills Vs. Union of India (supra) a learned Single Judge of this Court while considering the similar provisions of Sick Textile Undertaking (Nationalisation) Act, 1974 held that Act is a self-contained code. Any person having a claim against any sick textile undertaking has to file claim before the Commissioner of Payment. In the said Act also, it may be mentioned, the Parliament has laid down the priorities with respect to certain claims mentioned in different categories, as in the case of Bihar Sugar Undertaking (Acquisition) Act. It was held that the amount received by the Commissioner of Payment in lieu of nationalisation of the sick textile undertaking in question should be disbursed in terms of the priorities fixed by the Act. 14. The point at issue thus appears to be covered by the ratio of the aforesaid two decisions. No doubt another Bench of this Court in Mazdoor Sangh, S.K.G. Sugar Mills Vs. State of Bihar (supra) has issued a direction to the Company to deposit the entire amount of provident fund contribution without the parties, taking recourse to the provisions of Section 7 of the Act but, as pointed out by counsel for the Company, without taking into account either provision of Section 7 of the, Act or the decision on the point, which the counsel stated, were brought to the notice of the Bench, 15. In these premises, I am inclined to accept the submissions of the counsel for the respondent-Company that the petitioner-Union should seek its remedy by submitting claim before the prescribed Authority, namely, Member Board of Revenue, Bihar. In these premises, I am inclined to accept the submissions of the counsel for the respondent-Company that the petitioner-Union should seek its remedy by submitting claim before the prescribed Authority, namely, Member Board of Revenue, Bihar. It may be pointed out that the employees dues on account of unpaid provident fund stand at par with the unpaid salary, wages in category 1 of the 2nd Schedule and has precedence over other claims like cane price, loans of the banks and financial institution etc. In other words, while making disbursement of the amount of compensation the claim on account of unpaid provident fund will have precedence over other claims. The employees, therefore have complete and effective remedy available to them by of claim before the prescribed authority. It is open to the employees to challenge the action of the Prescribed Authority in the matter of disbursement of the amount determined as compensation payable to the Company. This writ petition appears to be premature at this stage. 16. For the reasons stated above, in my opinion, no ground has been made out for interference by this Court at this stage. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.