JUDGMENT P. K. MOHANTY, J. — The petitioners assail the order of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (a) Annexure-3 dated 18.2.2000 passed under Sec. 7-A of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, directing the petitioner No. 2 company to pay the said amount within 15 days, (b) the order dated 20.2.2001 in Annexure-4 directing the petitioner No. 1 company to take up liquidation at the aforesaid amount due on the opp. party No. 2 failing which it shall be declared a deemed defaulter and (c) the order of attachment dated 9.2.2001 in Annexure-6 directing the State Bank of Mysore to remit the de¬faulted sum of Rs. 22,34,637.72 in its favour. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner No. 1, Industrial Development Corporation, Orissa, Ltd. is a Govern¬ment Company registered under the Companies Act and is the hold¬ing company of petitioner No. 2, its subsidiary M/s. Idcol Piping and Engineering Works Ltd. Petitioner No. 2 company is also a Government Company registered under the Companies Act. The peti¬tioner No. 2, M/s. Idcol Piping and Engineering Works Ltd. has been declared as a sick industrial unit, under the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act by the Board of Industrial and Finance Reconstruction (hereinafter called as ‘B.I.F.R.’) in its order dated 26.8.1998 (Annexure-1). However, the B.I.F.R. having found that rehabilitation is not possible, directed winding up of petitioner No. 2 company under Sec. 20(1) of the Act by its decision dated 27.7.2000, copy of which is Annexure-2, as against which the petitioners have pre¬ferred appeal under Sec. 25 of the Orissa Sick Industrial Compa¬nies (Special Provisions) Act (hereinafter called ‘S.I.C. Act’) which is pending consideration before the appellate authority. The petitioner No. 2 company having defaulted in making payment towards Employees’ Provident Fund dues a proceeding was initiated and the defaulted amount was determined and payment was directed. The payment having not been effected by the petitioner No. 2, the R.P.F. Commissioner (opp. party No. 1) vide Annexure-3 dated 18.2.2000 under Sec. 7-A of the E.P.F. and M.P.Act determined a sum of Rs. 31,69,315.72 as the E.P.F. dues, requiring the employ¬er (petitioner No. 2) to make payment thereof within 15 days failing which necessary coercive legal action for recovery of the dues was to be initiated. party No. 1) vide Annexure-3 dated 18.2.2000 under Sec. 7-A of the E.P.F. and M.P.Act determined a sum of Rs. 31,69,315.72 as the E.P.F. dues, requiring the employ¬er (petitioner No. 2) to make payment thereof within 15 days failing which necessary coercive legal action for recovery of the dues was to be initiated. Petitioner No. 2 company having failed to make the payment, the R.P.F. Commissioner in his order dated 20.2.2001 (Annexure-4) intimated the petitioner No. 1 company that it being the holding company of the establishment of peti¬tioner No. 2, it is also accountable for liquidation of the certificate dues in view of the Section 8-F (3)(x) of the E.P.F. and M.P.Act. The petitioner No. 1 was required to take steps for liquidation of the arrear dues of petitioner No. 2 failing which the order of attachment would be passed. However, no steps were taken for liquidating the dues on the ground that the petitioner No. 2 being a sick industrial unit declared as such under the S.I.C. Act, no coercive action by way of execution or realisation of the certificate dues would be taken without the consent of the appellate authority under the Act or till the disposal of the appeal inasmuch as the petitioner No. 1 is not liable to pay the dues of petitioner No. 2 which is an independent registered company having its own assets and liability. The petitioners having failed to make the payment, the order of attachment (Annexure-6) dated 9.2.2001 has been issued by the R.P.F. Commis¬sioner requiring the State Bank of Mysore to remit the dues from the petitioner No.1’s account and it is stated that the amount have already been realised. 3. The default and non-payment of arrear Provident Fund dues in respect of M/s. Idcol Piping and Engineering Works Ltd. (petitioner No. 2) is admitted inasmuch as the determination of the amount of default made by the Regional Provident Commissioner is not under challenge. What is challenged in this writ application is the certificate proceeding initiated by the opp. parties for realisation of the E.P.F. dues in respect of the petitioner No. 2 and fixing the liability of petitioner No. 1 to pay the defaulted dues of its subsidiary - petitioner No. 2 and the order of attachment. 4. What is challenged in this writ application is the certificate proceeding initiated by the opp. parties for realisation of the E.P.F. dues in respect of the petitioner No. 2 and fixing the liability of petitioner No. 1 to pay the defaulted dues of its subsidiary - petitioner No. 2 and the order of attachment. 4. The main thrust of argument of Sri R.K.Rath the learned counsel, was that the petitioner No. 2 being a sick industrial unit declaring as such by the B.I.F.R. and the order of the B.I.F.R. for winding up of the company being under challenge before the appellate authority under Sec. 25 of the Act, no proceeding by way of execution, distress or the like against the said industrial company could be initiated in view of the prohibition, contained in Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. It is further contended that if the petitioner No. 2 has defaulted in making payment of the dues under the E.P.F. and M.P.Act, the opp. parties are free to proceed against it in accordance with law, since it is a company registered under the Companies Act having its own assets and liabilities, but the petitioner No. 1, M/s. Industrial Devel¬opment Corporation Orissa Ltd. cannot be held liable to liquidate the dues of petitioner No. 2 even if it is the holding company and the petitioner No. 2 is its subsidiary. 5. Mr. H.K.Jena, learned counsel appearing for the opp. party - Provident Fund authorities however, contends that the prohibition contained under Sec. 22 of the S.I.C. Act, has no application in respect of the Employees’ Provident Fund dues of the workers/employees which are part of their wages, inasmuch as the petitioner No. 1 being the holding company, in view of the provisions of Section 8-F (3)(x) of the E.P.F. and M.P. Act, it is squarely liable to make payment of the liabilities of its subsid¬iary. Several contentions have been raised in support and against the impugned orders and decisions of the Apex Court as well as of different High Courts have been relied on by the learned counsel appearing for both sides. Several contentions have been raised in support and against the impugned orders and decisions of the Apex Court as well as of different High Courts have been relied on by the learned counsel appearing for both sides. However, the points involved in this case are squarely covered by the decision of this Court delivered today in Industrial Development Corporation Orissa Limited and another v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II and another; (OJC No. 2851 of 2001) involving similar questions of law and, therefore, it is not necessary to enter into a detail discussion of the contention raised by the learned counsel for the parties. 6. In Industrial Development Corporation Orissa Limited and another v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II and anoth¬er (OJC No. 2851 of 2001), similar questions were raised and on detail and exhaustive consideration of the submissions made at the Bar and the case law cited, it has been held : (a) The exception or prohibition contemplated under Sec. 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, for execution, distress or the like against properties of a sick industrial unit is not applicable in respect of the statutory dues of an employee covered under the Provident Fund Scheme, which is a part of his legitimate claim of wages and, therefore, certificate proceedings and steps for realisation of such E.P.F. dues taken by the Provident Fund Commissioner under the E.P.F. and M.P.Act would not stand suspended, till after completion and disposal of the proceedings before the B.I.F.R. or the appellate authority. (b) Liability of a subsidiary company for payment of Provi¬dent Fund dues of its employees, in the event of its default, cannot become the liability of its holding company and as such, a holding company cannot be held liable, for payment of the defaulted amount towards the Provident Fund dues of its subsidi¬ary. Consequently the notice of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner declaring the holding company to be a deemed defaulter in terms of Section 8-F of the E.P.F. and M.P.Act is misconceived in law and liable to be quashed. 7. Consequently the notice of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner declaring the holding company to be a deemed defaulter in terms of Section 8-F of the E.P.F. and M.P.Act is misconceived in law and liable to be quashed. 7. In view of the aforesaid decision, it has to be held that the execution proceeding/certificate proceedings and or the order of attachment, for realisation of the Provident Fund dues under the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act are not prohibited under Sec. 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act in respect of a sick industri¬al unit. Section 2(e), 2-A and Section 8(3)(x) of the E.P.F. and M.P. Act does not contemplate, that any liability of a subsidiary company, which is registered under the Companies Act like that of petitioner No. 2, towards payment of Provident Fund contribution, becomes the liability of its holding company the petitioner No. 1. 8. In view of what has been held in Industrial Development Corporation Orissa Limited and another v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II and another (supra), which squarely covers the present case, it has to be held that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order of the Regional Provident Fund Commission¬er in initiating and proceeding with the Certificate proceedings and the consequential steps against the petitioner No. 2 - M/s. Idcol Piping and Engineering Works Ltd. for realisation of its Employees’ Provident Fund dues and that the bar or the prohibi¬tion contemplated under Sec. 22 of the S.I.C.Act has no applica¬tion to such realisation. But, however, the opp. parties cannot, proceed to realise the defaulted amount of petitioner No. 2 from the petitioner No. 1, M/s. Industrial Development Corporation Orissa Ltd. on the plea that it is its holding company. Accord¬ingly, the order of attachment passed by the R.P.F. Commissioner in Annexure-6 has to be quashed being unsustainable in law. Consequently, the amount, if any, realised by way of attachment is held illegal and inoperative. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated, but in the circumstances there shall be no order as to cost. Petition allowed.