ORDER :- The Company established an Industry for manufacture of Nylon Ropes and Fish-nets and the same was brought under the purview of Employees' Provident Fund Miscellaneous Provisions Act (for short 'the Act'). 2. The Company is said to have become sick. An application was moved before the BIFR, New Delhi, and Case NoA76 of 2002 was registered. Contributions to the provident fund became due from 2001 onwards. Therefore, notices of demand were issued and action was initiated against the petitioner in his individual capacity also. 3. The petitioner addressed a letter, dated 10.1.2007 to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Rajahmundry, the 1st respondent herein, stating that OS No.138 of 1998 filed by the Company against the 2nd respondent herein was decreed and that the amount covered by the decree may be recovered by invoking the power under Section 8-F (4) of the Act. The 1st respondent addressed a letter, dated 23.1.2007, stating that a sum of Rs.4,40,724/- is due, towards contribution and unless the amount covered by the decree is recovered from the judgment-debtor within 15 days, further steps would be taken under the relevant provisions of the Act against the property held by the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition. 4. Sri. AX. Jaya Prakash Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the 1st respondent has ample power to recover the amount covered by the decree and instead of taking necessary steps to recover the amount from the 2nd respondent, he is proposing to proceed against the petitioner. 5. Sri R.N. Reddy, learned Counsel for the 1st respondent, submits that, it is only when an amount is payable by a third party to an employer that the powers under Section 8-(4) of the Act, can be invoked. He contends that the 1st respondent does not have the power to enforce or execute a decree, by himself. 6. The petitioner does not dispute that the Company fell in arrears of contribution. This naturally resulted in issuance of notices and initiation of proceedings by the 1st respondent. The Company is said to have obtained a decree against the 2nd respondent, in relation to a transaction. However, it has not chosen to execute the decree. The petitioner wanted the 1st respondent to recover the amount covered by the decree from the 2nd respondent. This naturally resulted in issuance of notices and initiation of proceedings by the 1st respondent. The Company is said to have obtained a decree against the 2nd respondent, in relation to a transaction. However, it has not chosen to execute the decree. The petitioner wanted the 1st respondent to recover the amount covered by the decree from the 2nd respondent. Section 8-F(4) of the Act reads as under : "The Central Provident Fund Commissioner or the officer authorized by the Central Board in this behalf may apply to the Court in whose custody there is money belonging to the employer for payment to him of the entire amount of such money, or if it is more than the amount due, an amount sufficient to discharge the amount due." 7. From this provision, it is clear that it would be competent for an authority under the Act to recover the amount payable by an employer from a third party, if only there is no dispute about it and the money is in the custody of the Court. The provision does not confer the power on such an authority to execute the decree, as though it is an executing Court. Though an amount covered by the decree is very much payable, which can be recovered by an authority under the Act is, the one which has already been deposited with the Court. This, obviously would happen, when an execution petition is filed by the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor is made to deposit the amount. 8. In the instant case, the petitioner or the company did not file any EP. The 1st respondent cannot be expected to initiate execution. Much would depend upon the mutual rights and obligations of the parties, even under a decree. The question of limitation, availability of resources with the judgment-debtor, bar imposed by any law as to enforcement of decree, would arise and such questions can be decided only at the instance of the decree-holder. Viewed from any angle, the course of action indicated by the petitioner cannot be enforced. 9. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.