Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is the Recovery Officer attached to the office of the Regional Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Coimbatore. In this writ petition, they are seeking for a direction to the first respondent to release a sum of Rs. 62,32,349/- out of the accounts / deposits held by the first respondent before the third respondent and to pass appropriate orders. 2. When this writ petition came up on 26.09.2012, this court directed notice on admission. On such notice, the third respondent has filed a counter affidavit, dated 29.10.2012. The Official Liquidator has filed a report, dated 19.12.2012 along with the typed set of documents. The Recovery Officer has filed a reply affidavit, dated Nil (February, 2013). 3. Heard the arguments of Ms.R.Meenakshi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.S.R.Sundar, learned counsel for the Official Liquidator and Ms.R.Umasuthan, learned counsel for the third respondent. The second and fourth respondents though served not appeared through any authorised representative or counsel. 4. The case of the petitioner was that the 4th respondent company is covered by the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund Act and their registered Code number is TN/6264. They are the chronic defaulter in payment of PF dues. Despite notices have been issued under Section 7A, they have not paid the PF dues. Thereafter the amounts were computed including damages and interest were levied. The total dues payable by the 4th respondent company starting from September, 2001 to December, 2009, including interest and damages, worked out to Rs.62,32,349/-. In the meanwhile, M/s.Sundaram Finance Ltd., the creditor of the 4th respondent company, filed a company petition in C.P.No.243 of 1997. This court had ordered winding up of the company, by an order dated 25.6.2001. Pursuant to the directions issued by this court, the first respondent Official Liquidator took over the assets of the company. Even during the pendency of the company petition, as the company became sick, it was referred to the BIFR for framing a scheme. The BIFR, by an order dated 23.5.2006 had directed neither secured creditors nor any other agencies will not be permitted to execute a decree or order passed, if any in respect of the winding up petitions. As against the order of winding up, the two Directors of the company had preferred O.S.A.Nos.38 to 40 of 2006 before this court. 5. The BIFR, by an order dated 23.5.2006 had directed neither secured creditors nor any other agencies will not be permitted to execute a decree or order passed, if any in respect of the winding up petitions. As against the order of winding up, the two Directors of the company had preferred O.S.A.Nos.38 to 40 of 2006 before this court. 5. A learned Judge of this court was appointed as the Chairman of the Committee consisting of two Directors so as to take charge of the assets of the four units. The committee took over the assets on 19.03.2006. At that time, before the division bench the workmen were represented through counsel and they informed that the PF amount was not remitted. The Committee recorded the same in his minutes on 19.03.2006. There were two rival groups of persons claiming control over the company. One group consisting of one Mathivanan and Kumanan were paying Rs.10 lakhs towards rental amount for lease period from 1.7.2007. It was the understanding of the petitioner that the amounts have been paid continuously from July, 2007. The Recovery Officer has filed a claim in Form 66 before the Official Liquidator claiming amounts towards PF contribution. They also brought to the notice of the Official Liquidator regarding overriding effect of Section 11(2) of the PF Act. Even though the OL is having a lot of accumulation by way of collecting rent, the petitioner approached the company court by filing C.A.No.323 of 2010. The Company Court by its order dated 24.08.2010, had granted liberty to the Regional PF Commissioner to move an appropriate application before the BIFR for necessary orders. It was also stated that the claim of the PF Department can also be covered under Section 529A of the Companies Act. 6. Though Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies Act prohibits recovery of any amount pending BIFR reference, a Full Bench of this court vide judgment in Gowri Spinning Mills (P) Ltd., Rep. By the Managing Director, Thokkampatti v. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Sub-Regional Office, Salem reported in 2006 (5) CTC 1 has held that the recovery of amounts due to workers cannot be prohibited by the operation of the Section 22 of the SICA Act. Since the 4th respondent is under liquidation, the Official Liquidator who was appointed to take charge, is the employer of the company in terms of the Act. Since the 4th respondent is under liquidation, the Official Liquidator who was appointed to take charge, is the employer of the company in terms of the Act. Therefore, notice was issued to the Official Liquidator to clear the liabilities of the company vide notices dated 12.09.2011 and 29.12.2011. It was directed to clear the liabilities and transfer the amount lying with him to an extent of Rs.62,32,349/-. The Official Liquidator was also informed that coercive action will be initiated by the department if the amounts were not paid. Since the Punjab National Bank, i.e., the third respondent, is the banker for the Official Liquidator, a prohibitory order was issued to the Bank. 7. Reliance was placed upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vs. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and another reported in 2009 AIR SCW 6784 and also a judgment of the Supreme Court in EPFO Vs. Official Liquidator of Esskay Pharmaceutical reported in 2012 (I) LLJ 1 = (2011) 10 SCC 727 . It is learnt that the Official Liquidator is holding more than Rs.2 crores of the 4th respondent company and they are avoiding payment of statutory dues. Under these circumstances, the writ petition came to be filed. 8. In the report of the Official Liquidator, it was stated that the prohibitory order issued by the PF Department was on an erroneous presumption. The Official Liquidator did not carry any activity in the company under liquidation. They cannot attach the entire funds of the Official Liquidator lying with the third respondent Bank. They have also written to the department to withdraw the prohibitory order laying claim on the account maintained by the Official Liquidator. Under Section 456(2) of the Companies Act, the assets and effects of the company are deemed to be in the custody of the Court. The money available in the bank is the money belonging to various companies. They have also moved the court challenging the prohibitory order issued on the bank account held by the Official Liquidator. Under Section 456(2) of the Companies Act, the assets and effects of the company are deemed to be in the custody of the Court. The money available in the bank is the money belonging to various companies. They have also moved the court challenging the prohibitory order issued on the bank account held by the Official Liquidator. Even earlier, when the department filed C.A.No.323 of 2010 seeking for a direction to the Official Liquidator to release the outstanding dues from out of the rents collected, this court by an order dated 24.8.2010 observed that since the BIFR was seized of the matter, the Official Liquidator cannot further proceed with the matter during the pendency of the proceedings and they will have to wait for the decision of the BIFT and that a liberty was given to the PF department to move the BIFR. 9. On behalf of the third respondent, a doubt was raised relating to the prohibitory order issued against the bank. Since C.P.No.243 of 1997 is yet to be disposed of, the prohibitory order issued by the department was not valid. 10. In the rejoinder filed by the petitioner, the same contentions were reiterated and a reference was made to the Full Bench judgment in Gowri Spinning Mills case referred to above. It was also stated that the Official Liquidator is ultimately responsible for the dues payable by the company. 11. Mr. S.R. Sundar, learned counsel appearing for the Official Liquidator relied upon the very same judgment of the Supreme Court relied on by the petitioner in Employees Provident Fund Commissioner v. Official Liquidator of Esskay Pharmaceuticals Limited reported in (2011) 10 SCC 727 . In that case, the Supreme Court considered the effect of Section 11(2) of the PF Act vis-a-vis Section 529 of the Companies Act. In paragraphs 48 to 50, the Supreme Court had observed as follows : "48. It is also important to bear in mind that even before the insertion of Section 529(1) proviso, Sections 529(3) and 529-A** and amendment of Section 530(1), all sums due to any employee from a provident fund, a pension fund, a gratuity fund or any other fund established for the welfare of the employees were payable in priority to all other debts in a winding-up proceedings [Section 530(1)(f)]. Even the wages, salary and other dues payable to the workers and employees were payable in priority to all other debts. What Parliament has done by these amendments is to define the term “workmen’s dues” and to place them on a par with debts due to secured creditors to the extent such debts rank under clause (c) of the proviso to Section 529(1). However, these amendments, though subsequent in point of time, cannot be interpreted in a manner which would result in diluting the mandate of Section 11 of the EPF Act, sub-section (2) whereof declares that the amount due from an employer shall be the first charge on the assets of the establishment and shall be paid in priority to all other debts. The words “all other debts” used in Section 11(2) would necessarily include the debts due to secured creditors like banks, financial institutions, etc. The mere ranking of the dues of workers on a par with debts due to secured creditors cannot lead to an inference that Parliament intended to create first charge in favour of the secured creditors and give priority to the debts due to secured creditors over the amount due from the employer under the EPF Act. 49. At the cost of repetition, we would emphasise that in terms of Section 530(1), all revenues, taxes, cesses and rates due from the company to the Central or State Government or to a local authority, all wages or salary of any employee, in respect of the services rendered to the company and due for a period not exceeding 4 months, all accrued holiday remuneration, etc. and all sums due to any employee from a provident fund, a pension fund, a gratuity fund or any other fund for the welfare of the employees maintained by the company are payable in priority to all other debts. This provision existed when Section 11(2) was inserted in the EPF Act by Act 40 of 1973 and any amount due from an employer in respect of the employees’ contribution was declared first charge on the assets of the establishment and became payable in priority to all other debts. However, while inserting Section 529-A in the Companies Act by Act 35 of 1985 Parliament, in its wisdom, did not declare the workmen’s dues (this expression includes various dues including provident fund) as first charge. 50. However, while inserting Section 529-A in the Companies Act by Act 35 of 1985 Parliament, in its wisdom, did not declare the workmen’s dues (this expression includes various dues including provident fund) as first charge. 50. The effect of the amendment made in the Companies Act in 1985 is only to expand the scope of the dues of workmen and place them on a par with the debts due to secured creditors and there is no reason to interpret this amendment as giving priority to the debts due to secured creditor over the dues of provident fund payable by an employer Of course, after the amount due from an employer under the EPF Act is paid, the other dues of the workers will be treated on a par with the debts due to secured creditors and payment thereof will be regulated by the provisions contained in Section 529(1) read with Sections 529(3), 529-A and 530 of the Companies Act." (Emphasis added) 12. In the light of the above, the prohibitory order issued by the Recovery Officer is not legally valid as it had attached the entire funds of the Official Liquidator and not necessarily the funds arising out of the assets of the 4th respondent company. Ultimately, it is only when the entire process of liquidation is complete and since the petitioner had already filed Form 66 in the light of the judgment in Esskay Pharmaceuticals Limited, they may have priority over other claims for recovery of the amount. Until such time, the present prayer seeking for a direction to the Official Liquidator to pay legal dues from and out of the accounts held by him cannot be granted. The writ petition is misconceived. Accordingly, the writ petition will stand dismissed. No costs.