117. In the appeal filed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, it has been pleaded that the claim was filed by the Appellant for an amount of Rs.24,40,65,594/- towards damages under Sec�on 14B of Employees’ Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952, as per the order dated 17.10.2018. It is further men�oned that interest under Sec�on 7Q was also levied of Rs.12,85,92,763/-, which amount was paid by the establishment. The amount which was claimed by the Appellant was fully admi�ed by the Resolu�on Professional. List of Creditors men�ons the admi�ed amount of the Appellant. The Appellant has filed his claim in Form B, which Form B is at page 102 to 104 of the Appeal. The Appellant’s claim was not in the nature of workmen dues. The claim was also with regard to damages imposed under Sec�on 14B of the 1952 Act. The Appellant was treated as Opera�onal Creditor by the Resolu�on Professional, hence, the Appellant was allocated a fixed amount of Rs.15,000/- which was allocated to all Opera�onal Creditors except the workmen. 118. Challenge to the Resolu�on Plan by the Appellant is on the ground that Sec�on 11 of the 1952 Act requires priority over all other dues and further Sec�on 36(4)(a)(iii) excludes provident fund dues from the liquida�on estate of the Corporate Debtor. We have already dealt with provisions of Sec�on 36(4)(a)(iii) in foregoing paras of this judgment. Now, we, need to look into Sec�on 11 of 1952 Act. The Sec�on 11 of the 1952 Act provides for priority of payment of contribu�ons over other debts. Learned counsel for the Appellant has relied on judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Maharashtra State Coopera�ve Bank Limited vs. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner & Others, (2009) 10 SCC 123”. The Hon’ble Supreme Court dealing with Sec�on 11 of 1952 Act laid down following in Para 67:
