Judgment :- Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. The petitioner, hereinafter referred to as the "bank", is a banking company governed by the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970. Respondents 2 to 5 are its debtors, who have executed security documents creating equitable mortgages over immovable properties, in favour of the Bank. 2. The debt that respondents 2 to 5 owes to the bank is a "security debt" as defined under S.2(ze) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Industrial Act, 2002, hereinafter referred to as the "SARFAESI Act." The bank is thus a "secured creditor as defined in S.2(zd) having a "Security interest", as defined in S.2(zf), over the mortgaged property, which is a "security asset" in terms of S.2(zc) of the SARFAESI Act. 3. The second respondent going by its activities, is an establishment covered under S.1(3)(b) of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, hereinafter referred to as "EPF Act" and respondents 3 to 5, being its Managing Director/Director, are "employers" in relation to the said establishment, as defined in S.2(e) of the EPF Act. The said establishment is a defaulter of various dues, under EPF Act and the schemes there under for several years. Going by the statement filed by the first respondent, the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and Recovery Officer of the Employees Provident Fund Organization, the defaulted amounts for the period 6/99 to 8/04 is Rs.18,59,100.55/- with incidentals, out of which Rs.6,33,868/- is the amount deducted by the employers from the wages of the workers of the establishment. 4. The bank proceeded to enforce the security interest under S.13(1) of the SARFAESI Act by issuing notices, followed by takeover of constructive possession of the properties and thereafter by take over of actual physical possession of the factory of the respondents 2 to 5 and a residential building and the land on which it stands, all of which are part of the security asset. Such take over of physical possession was also published in terms of S.13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. 5. Noticing the aforesaid exercise by the bank the EPF Organization issued Ext.P3 notice on 13/04/2005, restraining the bank from selling the property. The said notice was issued under S.8(b) of the EPF Act. In issuing Ext.P3, the EPF Organization asserted the first charge provided by S.11(2) of the EPF Act. 5. Noticing the aforesaid exercise by the bank the EPF Organization issued Ext.P3 notice on 13/04/2005, restraining the bank from selling the property. The said notice was issued under S.8(b) of the EPF Act. In issuing Ext.P3, the EPF Organization asserted the first charge provided by S.11(2) of the EPF Act. The bank issued Ext.P4 to the EPF Organization, taking the stand that the provisions of the SARFAESI Act shall have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent thereto, contained in any other law, for the time being, in force. Accordingly, the bank called upon the EPF Organization to withdraw Ext.P3 prohibitory order. Apprehending that the EPF Organization will proceed further on the basis of Ext.P3 prohibitory order, the bank has filed this Writ Petition seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing Ext.P3 notice issued by the first respondent. 6. The learned counsel for the bank contended that SARFAESI Act was enacted only in 2002, long after the introduction of sub-s.(2) of S.11 of the EPF Act with effect from 1/11/1973 and therefore, being a later enactment, S.35 of the SARFAESI Act should be held to have an over-riding effect on the provisions in S.11(2) of the EPF Act and The proceedings under S.13 of the SARFAESI Act, initiated by the bank, is to run to its logical end, notwithstanding anything contained in S.11(2) of the EPF Act. In support of this proposition, the learned counsel for the bank referred to the decision of this Court in R.O. & Asst. P.F. Commr. v. K.F.C. (2002 (2) KLT 723) in which it was held that any over-riding effect of the State Financial Corporations Act for short the "SFC Act", by virtue of S.46(B) thereof introduced by Act 56 of 1956, has no impact on S.11(2) of the EPF Act, which, as already noticed, was introduced only later on, by amendment, as per the Act, 40 of 1973, with effect from 1/11/1973. This Court, therefore held that while the Parliament amended S.11 of the EPF Act, by specifically enacting sub-s.(2) thereof provide a statutory, first charge on the assets of the establishment, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time, being in force, the Parliament were aware of the provisions under S.46B of the SFC Act and that such later enactment over-rides the effect of the former. Relying on this it was urged on behalf of the bank that the same principle, namely, that the non-obstante clause, giving an over-riding effect, in a later enactment has a complete over-riding effect, notwithstanding any other consequence has to be applied to the situation in hand and as, a consequence, it has be held that S.35 of the SARFAESI Act, which is an enactment, made later in point of time to the introduction of S.11 (2) of the EPF, Act, has an over-riding effect over the Provisions of the EPF Act. 7. Per Contra, it was urged on behalf of the EPF Organization that unlike in the EPF Act, no charge is created by the SARFAESI Act and the unique nature of the provisions contained in S.11(2) of the EPF Act, cannot be held to be affected by S.35 of the SARFAESI Act. S.37 of the SARFAESI Act was also referred to by the learned counsel to urge that the said statute is only in addition to and not in derogation of any other law, for the time being, in force. It was also pointed out that even going by SARFAESI Act, S.39 thereof provides for distribution of amounts realized by the safe of secured assets, in accordance with the provisions of S.529(A) of the Companies Act, 1956 and, so much so, the Legislature must be deemed to have intended only to uphold the priority for the workers dues. It is also urged that it is not the intention of the SARFAESI Act to disturb the social welfare policy embedded in S.11(2) of the EPF Act. 8. On behalf of the workmen, a trade union on its application was impleaded and its counsel heard. Relying on the decisions of this Court in KFC's case (Supra) and Sherry Jacob v. Canara Bank, (2004 (3) KLT 1089), it was urged that this Writ Petition is only to be dismissed. 9. The issues that arise for decision in this case are (i) whether the provisions in the SARFAESI Act, have an overriding effect on the provisions of the EPF Act, and, (ii) whether the first charge and priority provided by S.11(2) of the EPF Act is hit by S.35 of the SARFAESI Act. 10. 9. The issues that arise for decision in this case are (i) whether the provisions in the SARFAESI Act, have an overriding effect on the provisions of the EPF Act, and, (ii) whether the first charge and priority provided by S.11(2) of the EPF Act is hit by S.35 of the SARFAESI Act. 10. S.35 of the SARFAESI Act reads as follows: S.35: "The provisions of this Act to override other laws: The provisions of this Act shall have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law." 11. The EPF Act is an Act to provide for the institution of provident fund, pension fund, deposit insurance fund, etc in factories and other establishments, to carry forward the constitutional mandate for providing social Justice to the working class. It is intended to give social security to the industrial workers at the end of heir careers. EPF Act provides for a deduction of prescribed amounts from the wages payable to the employees, and deposit of such amounts and contributions by the employer in the provident fund. The said fund is administered by the Central and Regional Provident Fund Commissioners, who have statutory authorities. EPF Act provides substantive rights and, corresponding obligations as well as statutory duties, non-performance of which invites statutory damages, other liabilities by way of interest etc. as well as penalties. It is a unique substantive law with a social welfare goal and provides; within itself, the means and procedures for its enforcement and to penalize those who violate its provisions. 12. S.11 of the EPF Act declares the priority of payment of contributions under the Act over other debts. Sub-s.(1) of S.11 of EPF Act deals with the question of priority where an employer is adjudicated insolvent or being a company subjected to an order of winding up. 12. S.11 of the EPF Act declares the priority of payment of contributions under the Act over other debts. Sub-s.(1) of S.11 of EPF Act deals with the question of priority where an employer is adjudicated insolvent or being a company subjected to an order of winding up. Sub-section (2) of S.11 deals with other types of priorities and reads as under: "11(2): Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-s. (1), if any amount is due from an employer, whether in respect of the employee's contribution deducted from the wages of the employee or the employer's contribution, the amount so due 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." 13. As noticed by the Division Bench of this Court in K.F.C's case (supra) sub-s. (2) of S.11 of the EPF Act has two facets. First, it declares that the amount due from the employer towards contribution under the EPF Act shall be deemed to be a first charge on the assets of the establishment. Second, it also declares that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, such debt shall be paid in priority to all other debts. Both these provisions bring out the intention of the Parliament to ensure the social benefit as contained in, the legislation. There are other provisions in the Act rendering the amounts of Provident Fund payable, immune from attachment of Civil Court's decree, which also indicate such intention of the Parliament. 14. The application of the Act to an establishment is by operation of law, in the sense that, the coverage commences from the falling of such an establishment within the parameters provided under sub-s. (3) of S.1 of the EPF Act. On the existence of such facts, the coverage is compulsory and liability for payment of contribution is automatic. The only exception to the coverage under sub-s.(3) of S.1 of the EPF Act is the exclusion of the application of the Act to certain establishments enumerated in S.16(1) of the said Act or by an exemption granted as per a notification as provided in S.16(2) of that Act. The only exception to the coverage under sub-s.(3) of S.1 of the EPF Act is the exclusion of the application of the Act to certain establishments enumerated in S.16(1) of the said Act or by an exemption granted as per a notification as provided in S.16(2) of that Act. Even those not covered under the Act can come under the cover of the Act by recourse to the procedure provided in sub-section (4) of S.1. The coverage under the EPF Act is not dependent on any order by any authority. Adjudication under S.7A is called for only when there is a dispute. 15. A reference to the S.7Q would show that the liability to pay interest arises from the debt on which the amount becomes due tinder the Act. The provision in S.7A and the provisions that follow the said section do not provide the incidents of levy of contribution. Contributions are to be paid in terms of S.6 and such liability is a statutory liability. What is provided under S.11(2) of the EPF Act is a first charge on the assets of the establishment. Such statutory first charge is provided notwithstanding anything contained in any other law. Such charge is as regards any amount due from the employer, whether in respect of the employer's contribution, or the employee's contribution, deducted from the wages of the employee. The aforesaid discussions would show that the statutory first charge created by sub-s.(2) of S.11 of the EPF Act is a charge on the assets of the establishment (employer) eo instanti, the occurrence of liability in terms of the Act. Such charge, being a statutory first charge notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, is one that is preferential even to a charge falling under S.100 of the Transfer of Property Act. 16. However, a survey of the provisions of the SARFAES1 Act would show that it does not provide for any statutory charge. In the absence of any statutory charge being provided by the SARFAESI Act, the statutory first charge created by S.11(2) of the EPF Act gives a clear priority to such charge Under the EPF Act over other charges including any right or mode of enforcement available to the bank under the SARFAESI Act, So much so, the first charge created by the EPF Act has precedence over any fight of the bank under the SARFAESI Act. 17. 17. To consider the issue further, it is appropriate to survey a few provisions of the SARFAESI Act. What is provided under S.13(1) of the SARFAESI Act is that notwithstanding anything contained in S.69 or S.69-A of the Transfer of Property Act, any security interest created in favour of any, secured creditor may be enforced, in accordance with the provisions of the said Act, by the creditor. S.2(zf) defines the security interest to mean right, title and interest of any kind, whatsoever, upon property created in favour of any secured creditor and includes any mortgage, charge, hypothecation assignment other than those specified in S.31. The security interest does not thus amount anything better than what could be a charge or a mortgage, in the context of this case for the purpose, of Transfer of Property Act. The creation of a statutory first charge by a provision like S.11(2) of the EPF Act gives a clear priority even against those charges created by the act of parties and even statutorily created charges, without any statutorily declared priority or preference. The assets may also be part of a security interest as defined in S.2(zf) of the SARFAESI Act. So much so, the provisions of S.11(2) of the EPF Act impinges on the right of any secured creditor, as defined in S.2(zd) of the SARFAESI Act to act u/s 13(1) of that Act, in relation to any property of defaulter under the EPF Act without acceding to the first charge for dues under the EPF Act. 18. In this context, it is worthwhile to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v. National Iron & Steel Rolling Corporation & Ors. (1995) 2 SCC 19) wherein a near similar provision under the Rajastan Sales Tax Act was considered. That provision also provided for a first charge, coupled with a non-obstante clause. The Apex Court held that, the statutory, charge provided under S.11 A of the Rajastan Sales Tax Act 1954, will prevail over even an early mortgage of the same property. In holding so, the decision of the Apex Court in Dattatreya Shanker Mote and Others v. Anand Chintaman Datar & Ors. ((1974) 2 SCC 799) was relied on. The Apex Court held that, the statutory, charge provided under S.11 A of the Rajastan Sales Tax Act 1954, will prevail over even an early mortgage of the same property. In holding so, the decision of the Apex Court in Dattatreya Shanker Mote and Others v. Anand Chintaman Datar & Ors. ((1974) 2 SCC 799) was relied on. It was held as imperative, that when a first charge is created by operation of law over any property that charge will have precedence over any existing mortgage. Following the said decision, the conclusion is irresistible that the first charge created by S.11(2) of the EPF Act has priority over any right of the bank referable to SARFAESI Act. 19. It has to be remembered that, as noticed by the Division Bench of this Court in K.F.C's case (supra), S.11(2) of the EPF Act declares that the amount due as contribution to the Employees Provident, Fund is first charge on the assets of the establishment and that, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, it shall be paid in priority against all other debts. This is a facet of the EPF Act that goes a step farther than what is provided in S.36 of the SARFAESI Act. The reason for this is obvious. While the secured creditors would have to be held entitled to recover the dues from a secured debtor, the provident fund payable to workers is of greater moment, since it is a matter of terminal social security benefit made available by statute to the working class. Taking into consideration that EPF Act is a social benefit legislation and the evil of the consequence of provident fund dues being defeated by prior claims of secured or unsecured creditors, the Legislature took care to declare that irrespective of when a debt is created, the dues under the E.P.F. Act would always remain the first charge and shall be paid first out of the assets of the establishment. In the result, this Writ Petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.