HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
WRIT PETITION No.3110 OF 2011
ORAL ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. B. Manoj Kumar,
learned counsel for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3.
2. Perusal of the record would reveal that respondent No.2 had passed order under Sections - 7Q and 14B of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short 'Act, 1952') determining an amount of Rs.5,37,854/- towards damages and Rs.1,79,636/- towards interest.
3. Challenging the said order passed under Section - 14B of the Act, 1952, the petitioner herein had preferred an appeal under Section 7-I of the Act, 1952 vide A.T.A. No.486 (1) of 2005. Vide order dated 08.12.2010, the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi dismissed the said appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondent No.2 had passed the aforesaid order without serving notice on the petitioner and without giving an opportunity. Though a specific ground was raised in the appeal, the Tribunal has not considered the said fact. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the impugned order dated 2 KL,J W.P. No.3110 of 2011 08.12.2010 passed by the Appellate Tribunal is not on consideration of actual facts.
5. Perusal of the grounds of appeal filed by the petitioner would reveal that the petitioner herein has specifically contended that respondent No.2 without giving an opportunity and without serving notice passed the aforesaid order quantifying the damages of Rs.5,37,854/- for a period from April, 2000 to July, 2001. RespondentNo.2 has referred to certain judgments, which, in fact, are not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. Though the said ground was specifically raised, the Tribunal has not considered the same. In the impugned order, there is a finding that no argument was advanced by the appellant and appeal was reserved for order after hearing the respondent as per Rule - 15. The main ground taken in the appeal is that delay is not intentional one but due to financial problem and the company became a sick company, no reason was assigned in the order and no opportunity was given to the appellant to place his case. The delay in starting the proceeding caused no prejudice to him.
6. As stated above, the petitioner herein is not a Company and it is a Society. The petitioner never raised ground of financial problem. The main ground raised by the petitioner in the appeal is that respondent 3 KL,J W.P. No.3110 of 2011 No.2 without giving reasonable opportunity and without serving notice passed the aforesaid order. The said contention and ground raised by the petitioner were not considered by the appellate Tribunal in the impugned order dated 08.12.2010.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner herein had deposited 50% of the amount determined by respondent No.2 under Section - 14B of the Act, 1952.
8. In view of the above said discussion, the order passed by respondent No.1 dated 08.12.2010 in ATA No.486 (1)2005 is not on the grounds raised by the petitioner and the appellate Tribunal has not considered the grounds raised by the petitioner in the impugned order. Therefore, the said order is liable to be set aside.
9. The present Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of setting aside the impugned order dated 08.12.2010 passed by respondent No.1 in ATA No.486(1)2005. The matter is remanded back to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court (Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal) at Hyderabad, for fresh consideration.
4
KL,J W.P. No.3110 of 2011
10. As stated above, the damages determined for the above said period and the order under Section - 14B of the Act, 1952 is dated 29.10.2004. The appeal is of the year 2005, and the appellate Tribunal had passed the impugned order in December, 2010. In view of the same, the appellate Tribunal shall dispose of the appeal in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
11. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed.
_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 20th September, 2022 Mgr