ORDER : Anant S. Dave, J. 1. This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the decision of respondent No. 1-Employees' Provident Fund Organization (hereinafter to be referred as "the PF organization") dated 09.08.2016, whereby the PF organization had ordered attachment of immovable properties belonging to one M/s. Safari Apparel Pvt. Ltd. (respondent No. 2). 2. The facts in brief are:- 2.1 The petitioner is a Nationalized Bank, which had given various credit facilities to respondent No. 2 - company and respondent Nos. 3 to 5, being Directors, had stood as guarantors to such credit facilities. 2.2 To secure such credit facilities, the respondent-Directors had executed guarantees in favour of the Bank and had also created equitable mortgage on certain immovable properties. 2.3 On account of serious defaults and irregularities in repayment against the credit facilities, account of respondent No. 2 was classified as non-performing account on 31.07.2009. 2.4 The petitioner Bank, therefore, under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 issued notice under Section 13(2) of the Act on 05.10.2009, whereby demand of Rs. 5,17,87,035/- was made. 2.5 The petitioner-Bank attempted to take over possession of the mortgaged and hypothecated properties, but as handing over of the peaceful possession was resisted by the respondent-Company and its Directors, the petitioner-Bank took over symbolic possession of such mortgaged and hypothecated immovable properties on 20.03.2010. 2.6 The petitioner-Bank thereafter filed OA No. 172 of 2010 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Ahmedabad for issuance of recovery certificate under the provisions of the RDDB Act. The said OA came to be decreed in favour of the petitioner-Bank. 2.7 The properties mortgaged to the petitioner-Bank included factory premises of respondent No. 2, admeasuring 6227 sq. mtr. with shed and machinery located in plot No. 17/18 bearing revenue survey No. 92 and other of village Sachin, Tal. Choryashi, Dist. Surat. 2.8 The impugned order of attachment of immovable properties issued by the respondent PF organization was also in respect of the very same properties and therefore, claim of the petitioner was to claim priority over the properties to satisfy its debts over the claim of PF dues. 3. It is in this regard, the present petition is filed. 4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner, relying upon Section 31B of the RDDB Act, 1993, claimed priority over the dues of the respondent PF organization. 3. It is in this regard, the present petition is filed. 4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner, relying upon Section 31B of the RDDB Act, 1993, claimed priority over the dues of the respondent PF organization. He submitted that Section 31B clearly prescribes that the right of the secured creditor to realize its debts by sale of assets, over which security interest is created, shall have priority over all other debts and Government dues and therefore, the impugned order of attachment cannot sustain. He also submitted that in view of the fact that in connection with the property in question, there exists legally enforceable decree, the respondent PF organization ought not to have passed the order without prior hearing of the petitioner-Bank as some interest is already created in its favour. 4.1 He has referred to a judgment of Full Bench of Madras High Court in the case of The Assistant Commissioner (CT) Vs. The Indian Overseas Bank & Anr. in Writ Petition No. 2675 of 2011 and cognate matters to substantiate his argument that the dues as mentioned in Section 31B of the RDDB Act shall have priority over all other dues and Government dues. 5. The issue of priority of claim came to be extensively considered by Full Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Central Bank of India Vs. State of Kerala & Ors., reported in (2009) 4 SCC, 94. In the said judgment, the Apex Court was considering whether Section 38C of Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 and Section 26B of Kerala General Sales Tax Act, by which first charge is created on the property of a person who is liable to pay sales tax, are in consistent with the provisions of DRT Act, 1993 and SARFAESI Act, 2002 for enforcement of security interest and whether by virtue of non obstante clause in relevant Section of the DRT and Securitisation Act will have primacy over the said legislations, were considered. The Apex Court proceeded to not only consider the Sales Tax Act but also several other Acts including the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 ("the EPF Act" for short). After considering the judgment of Division Bench of Kerala High Court on the point of precedence of EPF Act, where Section 11(2) creates first charge, the Apex Court held as under:- "126. After considering the judgment of Division Bench of Kerala High Court on the point of precedence of EPF Act, where Section 11(2) creates first charge, the Apex Court held as under:- "126. While enacting the DRT Act and Securitisation Act, Parliament was aware of the law laid down by this Court wherein priority of the State dues was recognized. If Parliament intended to create first charge in favour of banks, financial institutions or other secured creditors on the property of the borrower, then it would have incorporated a provision like Section 529A of the Companies Act or Section 11(2) of the EPF Act and ensured that notwithstanding series of judicial pronouncements, dues of banks, financial institutions and other secured creditors should have priority over the State's statutory first charge in the matter of recovery of the dues of sales tax, etc. However, the fact of the matter is that no such provision has been incorporated in either of these enactments despite conferment of extraordinary power upon the secured creditors to take possession and dispose of the secured assets without the intervention of the Court or Tribunal. The reason for this omission appears to be that the new legal regime envisages transfer of secured assets to private companies. 129. If Parliament intended to give priority to the dues of banks, financial institutions and other secured creditors over the first charge created under State legislations then provisions similar to those contained in Section 14A of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, Section 11(2) of the EPF Act, Section 74(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, Section 25(2) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, Section 30 of the Gift-Tax Act, and Section 529A of the Companies Act, 1956 would have been incorporated in the DRT Act and Securitisation Act. 130. Undisputedly, the two enactments do not contain provision similar to Workmen's Compensation Act, etc. 130. Undisputedly, the two enactments do not contain provision similar to Workmen's Compensation Act, etc. In the absence of any specific provision to that effect, it is not possible to read any conflict or inconsistency or overlapping between the provisions of the DRT Act and Securitisation Act on the one hand and Section 38C of the Bombay Act and Section 26B of the Kerala Act on the other and the non obstante clauses contained in Section 34(1) of the DRT Act and Section 35 of the Securitisation Act cannot be invoked for declaring that the first charge created under the State legislation will not operate qua or affect the proceedings initiated by banks, financial institutions and other secured creditors for recovery of their dues or enforcement of security interest, as the case may be." 5.1 In a subsequent decision also in the case of Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank Limited Vs. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner & Ors., reported in (2009) 10 SCC, 123, the Apex Court was directly dealing with the subject and has held in paras-30 and 31 as under:- "30. Since the Act is a social welfare legislation intended to protect the interest of a weaker section of the society, i.e., the workers employed in factories and other establishments, it is imperative for the courts to give a purposive interpretation to the provisions contained therein keeping in view the Directive Principles of State Policy embodied in Articles 38 and 43 of the Constitution. In this context, we may usefully notice the following observations made by Krishna Iyer, J. in Organo Chemical Industries v. Union of India (1979) 4 SCC 573 : "28. The pragmatics of the situation is that if the stream of contributions were frozen by employers' defaults after due deduction from the wages and diversion for their own purposes, the scheme would be damnified by traumatic starvation of the Fund, public frustration from the failure of the project and psychic demoralisation of the miserable beneficiaries whey they find their wages deducted and the employer get away with it even after default in his own contribution and malversation of the workers' share. "Damages" have a wider socially semantic connotation than pecuniary loss of interest on non-payment when a social welfare scheme suffers mayhem on account of the injury. Law expands concepts to embrace social needs so as to become functionally effectual. 40. "Damages" have a wider socially semantic connotation than pecuniary loss of interest on non-payment when a social welfare scheme suffers mayhem on account of the injury. Law expands concepts to embrace social needs so as to become functionally effectual. 40. The measure was enacted for the support of a weaker sector viz. the working class during the superannuated winter of their life. The financial reservoir for the distribution of benefits is filled by the employer collecting, by deducting from the workers' wages, completing it with his own equal share and duly making over the gross sums to the Fund. If the employer neglects to remit or diverts the moneys for alien purposes the Fund gets dry and the retirees are denied the meagre support when they most need it. This prospect of destitution demoralises the working class and frustrates the hopes of the community itself. The whole project gets stultified if employers thwart contributory responsibility and this wider fall-out must colour, the concept of 'damages' when the court seeks to define its content in the special setting of the Act. For, judicial interpretation must further the purpose of a statute. In a different context and considering a fundamental treaty, the European Court of Human Rights, in the Sunday Times Case, observed: The Court must interpret them in a way that reconciles them as far as possible and is most appropriate in order to realise the aim and achieve the object of the treaty. 41. A policy-oriented interpretation, when a welfare legislation falls for determination, especially in the context of a developing country, is sanctioned by principle and precedent and is implicit in Article 37 of the Constitution since the judicial branch is, in a sense, part of the State. So it is reasonable to assign to "damages" a larger, fulfilling meaning." 31. We shall now consider the question whether the provision contained in Section 11(2) of the Act operates against other debts like mortgage, pledge, etc. Answer to this question is clearly discernible from the plain language of Section 11. The priority given to the dues of provident fund etc. in Section 11 is not hedged with any limitation or condition. Rather, a bare reading of the section makes it clear that the amount due is required to be paid in priority to all other debts. Answer to this question is clearly discernible from the plain language of Section 11. The priority given to the dues of provident fund etc. in Section 11 is not hedged with any limitation or condition. Rather, a bare reading of the section makes it clear that the amount due is required to be paid in priority to all other debts. Any doubt on the width and scope of Section 11 qua other debts is removed by the use of expression 'all other debts' in both the sub-sections. This would mean that the priority clause enshrined in Section 11 will operate against statutory as well as non-statutory and secured as well as unsecured debts including a mortgage or pledge. Sub-section (2) was designedly inserted in the Act for ensuring that the provident fund dues of the workers are not defeated by prior claims of secured or unsecured creditors. This is the reason why the legislature took care to declare that irrespective of time when a debt is created in respect of the assets of the establishment, the dues payable under the Act would always remain first charge and shall be paid first out of the assets of the establishment notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force. It is, therefore, reasonable to take the view that the statutory first charge created on the assets of the establishment by sub-section (2) of Section 11 and priority given to the payment of any amount due from an employer will operate against all types of debts." 5.2 Similarly, in a later judgment in the case of Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank Limited Vs. Kannad Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited & Ors., reported in (2014) 14 SCC, 456, again dealing with the provisions of the EPF Act, the Apex Court reiterated the law laid down in the case of Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank Limited Vs. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner & Ors. (supra) and held in para-10 as under:- "10. The provisions of the Essential Commodities Act and the orders framed thereunder do not have any bearing on the interpretation of Section 11(2) of the 1952 Act, which was inserted by Amendment Act 40 of 1973. Those provisions have been enacted to ensure timely payment of price by the producer of sugar to the cane growers. The provisions of the Essential Commodities Act and the orders framed thereunder do not have any bearing on the interpretation of Section 11(2) of the 1952 Act, which was inserted by Amendment Act 40 of 1973. Those provisions have been enacted to ensure timely payment of price by the producer of sugar to the cane growers. They do not deal with the issue of payment of compensation of provident dues or the question whether such dues have priority over other debts. The fact that the petitioner is a scheduled bank also does not have any bearing on the correct interpretation of Section 11 of the 1952 Act. Therefore, we cannot ignore the ratio of the three-Judge Bench judgment by entertaining a wholly untenable argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner." 6. Section 31B of the RDDB Act reads as under:- "31B. Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the rights of secured creditors to realise secured debts due and payable to them by sale of assets over which security interest is created, shall have priority and shall be paid in priority over all other debts and Government dues including revenues, taxes, cesses and rates due to the Central Government, State Government or local authority." 6.1 Insofar as amendment to include Section 31B in the RDDB Act is concerned, Statement of objects and reasons for amendment by Amendment Act, viz. the Enforcement of Security Interest and Recovery of Debts Laws and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Act, 2016 reads as under:- "The Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 and the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, were enacted for expeditious recovery of loans of banks and financial institutions. Presently, there are approximately seventy thousand cases pending in Debts Recovery Tribunals. Though the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act provides for a period of 180 days for disposal of recovery applications, the cases are pending for many years due to various adjournments and prolonged hearings. In order to facilitate expeditious disposal of recovery applications, it has been decided to amend the said Acts and also to make consequential amendments in the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the Depositories Act, 1996. 3. In order to facilitate expeditious disposal of recovery applications, it has been decided to amend the said Acts and also to make consequential amendments in the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the Depositories Act, 1996. 3. The amendments proposed in the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 inter alia, include (i) expeditious adjudication of recovery applications (ii) electronic filing of recovery applications, documents and written statements; (iii) priority to secured creditors in repayment of debts; (iv) debenture trustees as financial institutions; (v) empowering the Central Government to provide for uniform procedural rules for conduct of proceedings in the Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals." 7. Inclusion of Section 31B does not change the position insofar as primacy of claim under the provisions of the EPF Act is concerned. The mention of Government dues which would include revenues, taxes, cesses and rates due to the Central Government, State Government or local authority would not take into its fold, the first charge created by operation of law in the form of Section 11(2) of the EPF Act. 8. On the other hand, what is sought to be recovered by the petitioner-Bank from respondent No. 2 is its debts which are included in Section 11(2) of the EPF Act and therefore, there is no hesitation in holding that the PF organization was within its power to issue the order dated 09.08.2016. 9. The challenge, therefore, for quashing and setting aside the aforesaid order fails. The petition is dismissed.