Allahabad High Court
Santosh University Managing ... vs Presiding Officer E.P.F.A.T., ... on 18 May, 2015
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 27
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 27505 of 2015
Petitioner :- Santosh University Managing Santosh Medical & Dental College
Respondent :- Presiding Officer E.P.F.A.T., New Delhi And 4 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Tripathi,Devesh Tripathi,Ramanuj Tiwari,Sri Shashi Nandan
Counsel for Respondent :- Satish Chaturvedi,S. Upadhayay
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
The writ petition is directed against the order dated 30.4.2015 passed by the Presiding Officer, Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi . Challenge is on the ground that the appeal filed under section7(1) of the Employees' Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952( hereinafter referred to as "the Act) by the petitioner against the order dated 17.11.2014 under section 14-B of the Act.While admitting the appeal , the appellate tribunal has illegally directed the petitioner to deposit the interest amount assessed under section 7(Q) of the Act, within thirty days of the order.
The contention of Shri Shashi Nadan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Sunil Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the appeal under section 7-Q of the Act is not maintainable before the appellate tribunal, there was no occasion for the Tribunal to direct the petitioner to deposit the said money.With reference to section 7-I of the Act, the contention is that the appeal is a statutory appeal and can only be maintained against the order, as per the statute. The appellate authority can not assume jurisdiction not provided under the law and direct the petitioner to deposit the interest computed under section 7(Q) of the Act.
Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 submits that the order dated 17.11.2014 is a composite order under section 14-B and 7-Q of the Act and hence appeal was clearly maintainable against the order dated 17.11.2014.No interference is required in the order of the appellate tribunal.
During the course of arguments Shri S.Upadhayay, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 fairly admits that panel interest awarded under section 7-Q is not on the amount of damages computed under section 14-B of the Act. In fact the interest is being levied on the delayed deposits by the petitioner-employer of their provident fund contribution. Therefore, the order under section 7-Q being an independent order no appeal lies. The direction given by the appellate tribunal to deposit the interest assessed under section 7-Q prima facie appears to be illegal.
The matter requires consideration.
All the respondents may file counter affidavit within three weeks. One week thereafter for filing rejoinder affidavit.
List after four weeks.
It is directed that subject to deposit of 50% of the interest awarded under section 7-Q by the order dated 17.11.2014, before Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Meerut within one month from today, no coercive action shall be taken by the respondent against the petitioner. The attachment order dated 31.3.2015 in respect of the interest amount calculated under Section 7-Q, shall also remained stayed, subject to the deposits directed herein above.
Order Date :- 18.5.2015
Atul kr. sri.
