Priority of EPF dues under the Insolvency Laws: A Labour Law Perspective – By Rupal Dugar and Dishay Chitalia

Priority of EPF dues under the Insolvency Laws: A Labour Law Perspective

Dishay Chitalia and Rupal Dugar
(5th Year students at WBNUJS Kolkata)

I. Introduction

At the core of social security legislations that have been enacted for the benefit of employees, one of the most significant ones is the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (“the EPF Act”).^[1] The primary objective of the EPF Act, when it was enacted, was to ensure social security for workers during their old age.^[2]

In this context, Courts have held the dues payable under the provisions of the EPF Act to be statutory dues that are owed to the workers.^[3] Under the EPF Act, the EPF dues shall be paid in “priority to all the other debts of the employer” and shall be given the first charge on the establishment’s assets.^[4] This has also been reiterated by the Courts in Recovery Officer, Assistant PF Commr. v. Kerala Financial Corpn.,^[5] and State Tax Officers & Ors. v. Rainbow Papers Limited.^[6]

However, even though the payment of the employee’s EPF dues is critical to a company’s operations, there arises an issue with respect to the application of the EPF Act during the initiation of a corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”) and when a company is undergoing Liquidation. Whilst the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“the Code/IBC”)^[7] seeks to protect a company’s stakeholders, the Code’s applicability remains shrouded in ambiguity when it comes to the payment of EPF dues.

The authors in this paper aim to analyse the interplay between the provisions of the EPF Act and the IBC with respect to the payment of EPF dues during CIRP and Liquidation. To contextualise the subsequent parts, Part II of the paper discusses the scheme of the EPF Act and the essential components of the EPFO claims that may arise during proceedings under the IBC. Part III traces the jurisprudence with respect to the payment of EPF dues under the erstwhile regime and the different stages of proceedings under the. Under Part IV, the authors attempt to analyse the implications of the non-payment of EPF dues from the perspective of the employee’s social security. Finally, Part V presents the concluding remarks.

II. Understanding The EPFO’S Claims: An interplay of EPF Act and IBC

Presently, the provisions of the EPF Act are applicable to all such establishments which have twenty or more persons employed.^[8] The Act ensures the benefit of all employees in these covered establishments by providing for the institution of a provident fund (“PF”), a pension fund, as well as a deposit-linked insurance fund for the employees.^[9] This is done by way of a contributory social security mechanism, whereby it is mandatory for both the employees and the employers to contribute to the employee’s PF according to the rates fixed by the Central Government.^[10] Furthermore, the EPF Act also has provisions to ensure that the employees are not disadvantaged owing to the employer’s failure to deposit their part of the contributions.^[11]

In the context of payment of EPF dues, Section 11 of the EPF Act envisages priority of payment of contributions over the other debts and states that if there is any amount due from an employer, such amount shall be deemed to be given the first charge on the establishment’s assets.^[12] The EPF Act vide Section 17-B also ensures that in the event of a transfer of establishment, the erstwhile employer as well as the person to whom the establishment stands transferred is liable jointly and severally to pay the contribution and other sums which are due to the employees under the EPF Act.^[13]

Keeping in mind the aforementioned background, the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation’s (“EPFO”) claims that may arise during CIRP and Liquidation can be categorised into three different components.^[14] First is the contributions made by the employees’ which are deducted from their wages/salaries for remittance to the EPFO, which in turn credits the sum to the respective PF accounts.^[15] Given that these contributions are not the assets of the establishment but of the employees’,^[16] the corporate debtor (“CD”) holds these contributions under a trust or any contractual arrangement.^[17] Second is the employer’s contributions to the PF.^[18] This component is muddled in uncertainty owing to the applicability of Section 11 of the EPF Act, whereby the sum due to the EPFO from the employer has to be paid in priority even when the company is undergoing insolvency proceedings.^[19] Third is the interest and the penalties that are payable to the EPFO due to the delays on part of the employer in remitting the contributions due to the employees.^[20]

III. EPF dues and the Insolvency Laws: a shroud of ambiguity?

Under this part, the authors shall analyse the jurisprudence vis-à-vis the payment of EPF dues under the insolvency laws. To contextualise the discussion, firstly, the treatment of EPF dues under the erstwhile regime, i.e., under the Companies Act, 1956 (“1956 Act”) is traced.[21] Thereafter, as per the scheme of the Code, the paper is categorised into two parts to understand further how EPF dues are paid under the provisions of the Code.

A. The Erstwhile Regime – Winding up under Companies Act, 1956

Under the unamended 1956 Act, there was an absence of any specific provision with respect to satisfying EPF dues in cases of winding up, and therefore, Section 11(2) of the EPF Act assumed primacy.^[22] The first charge on assets as per Section 11(2) was recognised in Maharashtra State Co-Op. Bank Ltd. v. Assistant PF Commr. by the Supreme Court.^[23] However, via the amendment to the 1956 Act, Section 529A was introduced which envisaged the legitimate dues of the workers to be pari passu to the charge to secured creditors.^[24]

The interplay between Section 529A and Section 11(2) of the EPF Act was extensively discussed in Esskay Pharma, wherein the Apex Court opined that even though the amendments to the 1956 Act were subsequent to Section 11(2), they cannot be said to have an overriding effect on the provisions of the EPF Act.^[25] The Court interpreted the amendment to the 1956 Act as applicable to legitimate dues of the workers other than PF dues.^[26]

However, the reasoning adopted in Esskay Pharma witnessed disregard in subsequent cases. For instance, in EPFO v. State of AP, the Court, while interpreting the waterfall mechanism under Section 12-A(9) of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, gave precedence to the State legislation over Section 11(2) of the EPF Act.[27] Adding to the growing complications, the Court in Punjab Wireless System Limited v. The Canara Bank,^[28] distinguished the Esskay Pharma ruling by stating that, in that case the EPFO had already passed an order for the attachment of property along with the decree. However, if no attachment prior to winding up is obtained, then the scheme under the 1956 Act will be followed. Effectively, the High Court limited the application of the Esskay Pharma reasoning to just those situations in which the EPF dues were crystallised and further affirmed that where such debts have not yet materialised, the EPF obligations would be on an equal footing with those of other employees and secured creditors.[29]

Hence, even before the Code was enacted, the situation vis-à-vis the priority of EPF claims has been on a slippery slope.

B. Priority of EPF dues under the IBC

Whilst the introduction of the Code has been perceived as a welcome step owing to its success in reviving the Indian insolvency regime, the situation with respect to EPF dues still remains murky. The point of contention here is whether the mechanism under Section 11(2) of EPF Act or Section 53 of the Code should be followed in case of a company undergoing CIRP or Liquidation.

Given the scheme of the Code, this part is divided into two sub-sections (1) Priority of EPF dues in Liquidation, and (2) Priority of EPF dues for companies undergoing CIRP.

1) Priority of EPF dues in Liquidation

In the event of liquidation, vide Section 33(7) of the Code employer-employee relationship is terminated by discharging all the employees, officers, etc.[30] Section 53 of the Code ranks workman dues pari passu to secured creditors.[31] Section 53 states workman dues shall be given the same meaning as Section 326 of Companies Act, 2013, which includes PF.[32] A combined reading of the non-obstante clause in Section 53 and the overriding effect of the Code envisaged under Section 238 evinces that the EPF dues shall be dealt as per the waterfall mechanism.

However, the conflict stems from Section 36(4)(a)(iii) of the Code which excludes “all sums due to any workmen or employee from the provident fund, the pension fund and the gratuity fund” from the liquidation estate.[33] In this vein, it is abundantly clear from the judgements in Alchemy ARC v. Moser Baer and Board of Trustees v. Liquidator, Gorur Venkataraman, that PF does not form a part of the liquidation estate and cannot be paid back in accordance with Section 53.[34] Notwithstanding, the Code being clear and unequivocal, contrary views has been taken by the NCLT in Mr. Pankaj Khetan v. EPFO and Reg. PF Commr. v. Karpagam Spinners Pvt. Ltd., relying on Section 238.[35] This dubiety may have arisen due to improper application or comprehension of the legislative requirements.

The dust seemingly has been settled by the Supreme Court in S.K. Jain v. Sundaresh Bhatt, wherein the Court stated PF, if any available, will not form a part of the liquidation estate.[36] This line of reasoning also brings into light the debate surrounding the cases where there is no PF or corpus for PF created by the CD. Herein, the aforesaid judgment states “if available”, which means there is no obligation on the liquidator to create a separate fund in cases where the CD has not created one. A perusal of the rulings in Savan Godiwala and B. P. Udpa is also reflective of the position that where no such corpus has been created by CD, the liquidator cannot be directed to make provision for gratuity or PF payments.[37] However, the veracity of these judgements can be called into question in light of the recent Jet Airways ruling which despite being in the context of CIRP has some bearing on this issue.

2) Priority of EPF dues vis-à-vis companies undergoing CIRP

At the outset, it is of utmost importance to clarify that as per the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ghanshyam Mishra v. Edelweiss ARC, statutory creditors are bound by the approved Resolution Plan and all claims which are not a part of the plan stand extinguished.[38] Therefore, EPF claims have to mandatorily be presented to the Resolution Professional (“RP”) /Interim Resolution Professional (“IRP”) prior to the acceptance of the Plan by the Adjudicating Authority (“AA”).[39]

The stance vis-à-vis the payment of EPF dues for companies undergoing CIRP remains debatable. While in some instances, tribunals have not interfered with the resolution plan even when the PF dues aren’t paid in full, in other cases, they have directed full payment of PF dues at the outset by the Successful Resolution Applicant (“SRA”).

1. Where NCLT/NCLAT has not interfered with non-payment of EPF dues

As recent as December 2022, in EPFO v. Krishna Saibaba, the EPFO contended that the resolution plan was violative of Section 30 of the Code since only a part of EPF dues were accounted for.[40] The NCLAT while rejecting the appeal and upholding the approval of the RP by the NCLT, held that it cannot question the “commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors” (“CoC”) and opined that the plan did not suffer from an infirmity.[41]

Even in Reg. PF Commr., EPFO, Telangana v. Vandana Garg,[42] wherein the haircut payment of EPF dues under the resolution plan was questioned by the EPFO in light of Section 36 of the Code, the NCLAT held that Section 36 is applicable only in cases of Liquidation and not in case of CIRP.

Akin to the aforementioned cases at several other instances,^[43] under the garb of commercial wisdom of the CoC, the Tribunals have allowed haircut payment of employee’s EPF dues.

2. Where NCLT/NCLAT has directed the EPF dues to be paid in full

Contrariwise, in the infamous Rainbow Papers case,[44] the PF Commr. had contested the acceptance of the resolution plan on ground of haircut payment of EPF dues. The NCLAT opined that there was a lack of conflict between the provisions of the Code and EPF Act and relying on the Section 36 of the Code directed the SRA to release the PF and interests.[45] An appeal was preferred against this order which was rejected by the Supreme Court. Likewise, in Sikander Singh Jamuwal v. Vinay Talwar, the SRA argued that the Tribunal cannot question the CoC’s “commercial wisdom”, however the same was rejected by the NCLAT as Section 30 requires the Tribunal to ensure that the resolution plan does not contravene the provisions of any other law, and since the EPF Act mandates the payment of EPF dues, the SRA was directed to the pay such dues in full.[46]

As discussed previously, although there exist contradictory judgements, the tribunals and courts have adopted the aforesaid approach in the recent rulings. In Assam Tea EPFO v. Mr. Madhur Agarwal, the Tribunal held that PF is not a part of assets of the CD and has to be paid in full by the SRA.[47] Furthermore, by order dated February 16, 2023, in Jalan Fritsch Consortium v. Reg. PF Commr., the Supreme Court upheld the NCLAT judgement in the Jet Airways case directing the SRA to disburse PF and gratuity dues in its entirety.[48] Therefore, it appears that the Jet Airways case settles the issue pertaining to  payment of PF dues for a company undergoing CIRP.

These longstanding issues and the shroud of ambiguity surrounding the priority of EPF payments have led to several hardships for the employees, which will be discussed subsequently. 

IV. Implications of Non-Payment of EPF Dues: Setting the Tone for Social Security for Employees

With the enactment of insolvency laws, “strategic bankruptcies” have also been on the rise.[49] Such business strategies are adopted to elude the payment of dues owed to the creditors, but as collateral, they often also result in the subjugation of employees’ rights due to non-payment of their dues.[50] This, coupled with the uncertainty vis-à-vis the payment of EPF dues, muddle with the social security benefits that have been envisaged for the employees. Social security, which includes within its ambit social assistance, social protection, safety nets and any other form of preventive and promotional measure,[51] should not be denied under the garb of the sophisticated insolvency laws.

In this context, the authors are in agreement with the stance taken in Jet Airways with respect to the payment of EPF dues during CIRP. Evidently, the aforementioned position with respect to the payment of EPF dues when the company is undergoing CIRP embodies the principles of social security for employees. By holding that the employees are entitled to receive the PF in full and that the SRA must pay the balance if due, the law protects the employees, who often, due to their lower position on the socio-economic ladder may not necessarily be able to comprehend the intricacies of the CIRP process and in turn be at the risk of losing their “social safety nets”, i.e. these PF dues.

However, in the opinion of the authors, when viewed from the lens of social security of the employee, the problem arises in case a company goes for liquidation. Albeit, the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the recommendation of the EPFO made changes to the draft IBC and stated that PF, pension funds and gratuity are the “social safety nets” of the workmen and thereby needs to be secured and excluded from the company’s liquidation estate,[52] as seen above there is a jurisprudential divergence herein. While, tribunals and courts alike have given primacy to social security of the employees by recognising that when a corpus for payment of EPF has been created, the same shall be excluded from the liquidation estate, the path gets murky when such a corpus has not been created.

It is undeniably true that the EPF Act casts an obligation upon the employer to institute a corpus for the payment of PF dues to the workmen and employees.[53] It would thus be a travesty and against the principles of affording social security to employees, if their realisation of these EPF dues is jeopardised.

The EPF Act embodies the Directive Principles of State Policy envisaged under Articles 38 and 43 of the Indian Constitution, and thereby ensures social security benefits for the employees through the institution of PF, pension funds, etc.[54] As held by the Supreme Court in Bharatkhand Textile Mfg. v. Textile Labour Association,[55] and subsequently in Arcot Textile Mills v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,[56] the EPF Act is a beneficial social legislation enacted to ensure health as well as other benefits are made available to the employees and that the statutory contributions that the employer is obligated to deposit is done in a timely fashion. Furthermore, the Apex Court in Balbir Kaur v. SAIL while recognising the importance of PF as an insulating factor during an employee’s retirement, has held that non-payment of an employee’s EPF dues results in hardships and denial of social security to employees.[57] Even vis-à-vis the priority of payment of PF sums during liquidation, it has been repeatedly reiterated that the dues under EPF are an intrinsic part of a worker/employee’s right to life, simply because they work hard to save this portion of their income for future adversaries and retirement.[58]

In essence, by recognising that there is no obligation to pay EPF dues when there is no corpus, it has the effect of equating these sums with all other secured or unsecured debts of a company.[59] Given that the EPF dues are relied upon by the employees during their retirement when their working capacity has been reduced and their life has become vestigial, if these PF dues go unpaid then it would have the detrimental effect of diluting the employees’ right to social security benefits which is a fundamental part of their right to life as per C.E.R.C. v. Union of India.[60]

Furthermore, in case of liquidation under the IBC, since the company ceases to exist, it results in loss of jobs, be it blue collar or white collar jobs.[61] According to an estimate, in case liquidation under the IBC there is job loss for 1.1 million workers.[62] Therefore, in such a situation where these employees and workers are already at the brink of unemployment, using the “commercial wisdom of CoC should not be hampered with” rationale as a shield to pierce a hole in their right to realise their social security benefits under the EPF Act and claim their EPF dues has detrimental effects on their livelihood.

While the position of law with respect to exclusion of EPF dues from the liquidation estate when there is a corpus is settled, in our opinion there needs to be a change when there is no such corpus created by CD since non-payment of PF dues in such instances defeats the purpose of the EPF Act.

In such cases, the duty to determine the PF claim should be given to the RP/Liquidator who shall undertake the same while verifying and collating claims of other creditors as a part of the CIRP/Liquidation process. This would help even in cases where the CD has arrears towards the corpus. In Ghanshyam Mishra, the Court had opined that all claims which are not part of resolution plan stand extinguished,[63] and therefore, it is instrumental that the duty be given to the RP/Liquidator at the initial stage to crystallise the claim of the employees to protect their interest and ensure that the workers are not stripped off their social security benefits.

The discussion would be incomplete without discussing the changes introduced under the Code of Social Security, 2020. Section 19, Chapter III of Code of Social Security, 2020 states that the mechanism under the priority over assets in EPF claims shall be as per the provisions of the IBC.[64] However, this too is problematic, given the stance taken in the Parliamentary Committee Report on the draft IBC, wherein we can see that Section 36(4)(a)(iii) specifically excludes the PF from the liquidation estate. EPF Act being a beneficial legislation should be interpreted liberally in line with the interpretation given in the Esskay Pharma ruling and before CIRP/Liquidation the PF dues should be paid in its entirety. This will ensure that rights of the employees are protected. The insolvency process is complex and beyond the understanding of the employees and it is critical that the legislature and judiciary take active steps to address these long standing concerns at the earliest. 

Employees form the backbone of any solid establishment and contribute towards its growth and prosperity. The social security benefits in the form of PF, pension funds, etc. have been designed to protect these employees and offer a sense of social assurance and insurance. The employees contribution towards the PF is a part of the hard-earned wages/salaries which the employee keeps aside in hopes of having some sort of security post retirement or in any adverse future situations, when they are no longer capable to work.

The IBC was originally designed to refurbish the Indian insolvency and bankruptcy regime. However, as the authors have traced in the paper, while the position vis-à-vis priority of payment of EPF dues is clear in some aspects, the jurisprudential divergence in the IBC regime, owing to which employees are not paid their EPF dues is problematic. This not only goes against what the drafters had envisaged while formulating the Code, but also has a detrimental effect on the social security of employees. Therefore, the need of the hour is to interpret the provisions of the Code and the EPF Act harmoniously and also introduce changes in the mechanism of payment of unpaid EPF dues during CIRP/Liquidation, so that employees right to access the benefits under the EPF Act are not subsumed.

Reference:

[1] The Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.

[2] Manorama G. Savur, Social Security Legislation in India—I: The Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme, 2(39) EPW 1769, 1771 (September 30, 1967).

[3] SESA Group Employees Provident Fund & Ors. v. Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. & Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine NCLAT 829, ¶9; See generally, Bhupinder Singh v. Unitech Ltd., (2022) 8 SCC 749.

[4] The Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, §11(2).

[5] Recovery Officer, Assistant Provident Fund Commr. v. Kerala Financial Corpn., (2002) 95 FLR 1024 (Ker), ¶9.

[6] State Tax Officers & Ors. v. Rainbow Papers Limited, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1162, ¶¶56-57.

[7] The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

[8] The Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, §1(3).

[9] Id.

[10] Id., §6. 

[11] Id., §14.

[12] Id., §11(2).

[13] Id., §17-B.

[14] R. Dharmarajan, Liquidator’s conundrum on PF and Gratuity dues under IBC, The Resolution Professional 22, 23 (2021).

[15] Id.

[16] Assam Tea Employees Provident Fund Organisation v. Mr. Madhur Agarwal, CA (AT) (Insolvency) No. 262 of 2022, ¶11.

[17] See, The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, §18.

[18] Dharmarajan, supra note 14, 23.

[19] The Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, §11.

[20] Dharmarajan, supra note 14, 23.

[21] The Companies Act, 1956.

[22] The Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, §11(2).

[23] Maharashtra State Co-Operative Bank Limited v. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, (2009) 10 SCC 123, ¶31.

[24] The Companies (Amendment) Act, 1956, Act No. 35 of 1985.

[25] Employees Provident Fund Commissioner v. Official Liquidator of Esskay Pharmaceuticals Ltd., (2011) 2 Comp LJ 465 (SC), ¶¶48-49.

[26] Id., ¶¶18, 50.

[27] Employees’ Provident Fund Organization v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2018) 17 SCC 321, ¶¶5, 8.

[28] Punjab Wireless System Ltd. v. The Canara Bank & Ors., MANU/PH/0168/2020, ¶18.

[29] Id., ¶19.

[30] The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, §33(7).

[31] Id., §53.

[32] The Companies Act, 2013, §326

[33] The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, §36.

[34] Alchemist Asset Reconstruction Company Limited v. Moser Baer India, 2019 SCC OnLine NCLT 118, ¶3; State Bank of India v. Moser Baer Karamchari Union, 2019 SCC OnLine NCLAT 447 ¶24.

[35] Mr. Pankaj Khetan v. Employee Provident Fund Organisation, 2020 SCC OnLine NCLT 19513; Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Karpagam Spinners Private Limited, 2019 SCC OnLine NCLT 1640.

[36] Sunil Kumar Jain v. Sundaresh Bhatt, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 2159, ¶24.

[37] Savan Godiwala v. Apalla Siva Kumar, 2020 SCC OnLine NCLAT 191; B. Parameshwara Udpa v. Assistant PF Commr., MANU/NL/0763/2022.

[38] Ghanshyam Mishra & Sons v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 313, ¶61.

[39] Id., ¶61. 

[40] Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Hyderabad v. Dommeti Surya Rama Krishna Saibaba, MANU/NL/1012/2022.

[41] Id., ¶¶46-47.

[42] Regional Provident Commissioner, EPFO, Telangana v. Vandana Garg CA (AT) (Ins.) No.50 of 2021.

[43] See, In the matter of M/s. PRC International Hotels Private Limited, 2019 SCC OnLine NCLT 34412; IDBI Bank Ltd. v. EPC Constructions India Limited 2019 SCC OnLine NCLT 23529.

[44] Tourism Finance Corporation of India Ltd. v. Rainbow Papers Ltd., 2019 SCC OnLine NCLAT 910.

[45] Id., ¶¶44-45.

[46] Sikander Singh Jamuwal v. Vinay Talwar, 2021 SCC OnLine NCLAT 2950, ¶¶15-19.

[47] Assam Tea Employees Provident Fund Organisation v. Mr. Madhur Agarwal, CA (AT) (Insolvency) No. 262 of 2022, ¶11.

[48] Jet Aircraft Maintenance Engineers Welfare Association v. Ashish Chhawchharia, 2022 SCC OnLine NCLAT 418 (upheld in Jalan Fritsch Consortium v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 106)

[49] Morgan & Morgan, What Is a Strategic Bankruptcy?, July 27, 2021, available at https://morganlawyers.com/what-is-strategic-bankruptcy/ (Last visited on March 10, 2023).

[50] IIFL Securities, Economics For Everyone: The Insolvency And Bankruptcy Code In India And The National Company Law Tribunal, November 19, 2017, available at https://www.indiainfoline.com/article/article-latest/economics-for-everyone-the-insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-in-india-and-the-national-company-law-tribunal-117111600570_1.html (Last visited on March 10, 2023).

[51] Rolf Sülzer, Social Security in India – A System in the Making in The Social and Ecological Market Economy – A Model for Asian Development? 211, 212 (2008).

[52] Sixteenth Lok Sabha, Report of the Joint Committee on the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2015, ¶¶27-28 (April, 2016).

[53] Malak Bhatt et al., Payment Of EPF Dues Under The IBC – Supreme Court Paves Way For Full Realization, February 26, 2023, available at https://www.livelaw.in/columns/payment-of-epf-dues-under-the-ibc-supreme-court-paves-way-for-full-realization-222546?infinitescroll=1 (Last visited on March 10, 2023).

[54] Veena Gopalakrishnan & Vikram Shroff, Social Security Agreements, International Taxation — A Compendium, I-308, available at https://www.nishithdesai.com/fileadmin/user_upload/pdfs/Research%20Articles/Social%20Security%20Agreements.pdf (Last visited on March 10, 2023).

[55] Bharatkhand Textile Mfg. v. Textile Labour Association, AIR 1960 SC 833, ¶14. 

[56] Arcot Textile Mills v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, AIR 2014 SC 295, ¶¶27-29. 

[57] Balbir Kaur v. SAIL, AIR 2000 SC 1596, ¶16. 

[58] Precision Fasteners Limited v. EPFO & Ors., 2018 SCC OnLine NCLT 27284, ¶29.

[59] Yash Gupta, Payment of PF and Gratuity dues during CIRP – The dust settles, [2023] 147 taxmann.com 422.

[60] Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India, (1995) 3 SCC 42, ¶18.

[61] Gerald Irwin, What Happens to Employees When a Company Goes into Liquidation?, available at https://www.irwin-insolvency.co.uk/employees-during-company-liquidation/ (Last visited on March 10, 2023); The Business Standard, 600 fear job loss due to possible Nicco Corp liquidation, October 14, 2017, available at  https://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/600-fear-job-loss-due-to-possible-nicco-corp-liquidation-117101400250_1.html (Last visited on March 10, 2023).

[62] Business Today, Rs 6.5 lakh crore haircut, 1.1 million job losses; is IBC really a success?, August 27, 2020, available at https://www.businesstoday.in/opinion/columns/story/ibc-process-companies-job-losses-due-to-liquidation-insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-250846-2020-02-26 (Last visited on March 10, 2023).

[63] Ghanshyam Mishra & Sons v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 313, ¶61.

[64] The Code of Social Security, 2020.

Disclaimer: The Opinions expressed in this article are that of the author(s). The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of IBC Laws. The entire contents of this document have been prepared on the basis of the information existing at the time of the preparation. The author(s) and IBC Laws do not take responsibility of the same. Postings on this blog are for informational purposes only. Nothing herein shall be deemed or construed to constitute legal or investment advice. Discussions on, or arising out of this, blog between contributors and other persons shall not create any attorney-client relationship.