Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
M/S Pereira English Noble School vs The Regional Provident Fund ... on 23 January, 2024
Author: R. Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R. Raghunandan Rao
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
WRIT APPEAL No.1159 of 2023
M/s Pereira English Noble School,
Popularly called as P.E.N. School
(Recognized by the Government of Andhra Pradesh)
Rep. by its Authorized Signatory,
P.L.Swapna, W/o Maheswara Rao,
R/o D.No.30/15/39, Sundari, Daba Gardens,
Visakhapatnam.
... Appellant
Versus
The Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner-II (Compliance),
Regional Office, Visakhapatnam & another.
...Respondents
Mr.D. Vamsi Krishna, Counsel for the appellant.
Mr. P. Ram Bhupal Reddy, Standing Counsel for EPF, for
respondent Nos.1 and 2.
DATE : 23.01.2024
PER DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ (Oral):
The present Letters Patent Appeal is preferred against the
judgment and order, dated 04.08.2023, passed in W.P. No.19651 of
2023.
HCJ & RRR, J
The petitioner had filed the writ petition challenging the order
passed under Section 7(A) of the Employees' Provident Funds and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short 'the Act') and
directed the petitioner/appellant herein to deposit an amount of
Rs.1,29,38,872/- towards EPF due.
2. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the Regional Provident
Fund Commissioner, the petitioner challenged the same before the
learned single Judge, who by virtue of the judgment and order
impugned, ordered the petitioner to invoke the appeal provision
under Section 7(I) of the Act within a period of two weeks
therefrom subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits 40%
of the amount demanded as per the impugned order, dated
10.07.2023.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned
judgment and order is unsustainable in view of the fact that while
relegating the appellant to the remedy of appeal as provided under
Section 7(I) of the Act, had made the same subject to deposit of 40%
of the demand raised by virtue of the order impugned in the writ
petition, which comes to approximately Rs.51,75,548/-. It is stated
that if the appellant were to deposit the 40% amount as ordered just
to avail the remedy of appeal before the Appellate Authority under
HCJ & RRR, J
the Act, the appellant would have to close down its Educational
Institute.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. There is no doubt that an order passed under Section 7(A) of
the Act can be challenged in an appeal to be filed under Section 7(I)
of the Act. However, Section 7(O) of the Act envisages clearly that
no appeal by the employer shall be entertained by the Tribunal
unless the employer deposits an amount equivalent to 75% of the
amount due as determined by the Officer under Section 7(A) of the
Act.
However, the proviso to Section 7(O) of the Act clearly
envisages that the Tribunal may, for reasons to be recorded in
writing, waive or reduce the amount to be deposited under Section
7(O) of the Act.
It thus transpires that while preferring an appeal, the
appellant may apply to the Tribunal for either reduction or
complete waiver of the pre-deposit as envisaged under Section 7(O)
of the Act. By virtue of the judgment and order impugned, the
learned single Judge while relegating the appellant to the remedy of
appeal and by ordering the appellant to deposit an amount
HCJ & RRR, J
equivalent to 40% of the due, has in fact taken away the right
vested with the appellant to make an application for reducing or
completely waiving the amount of pre-deposit. In our opinion, it
appears that the provisions of Section 7(O) of the Act were never
brought to the notice of the learned single Judge and therefore, the
indulgence shown by the learned single Judge in fact has resulted
in taking away the right of the appellant to make a prayer for
complete waiver of the pre-deposit in terms of proviso to Section
7(O) of the Act.
Be that as it may, we modify the judgment and order to the
extent that while the appellant may be at liberty to prefer the
appeal within two weeks before the Appellate Authority we leave
the appellant free to file an appropriate application in terms of
proviso to Section 7(O) of the Act, which may be considered on its
own merits by the Appellate Authority.
The Writ Appeal is accordingly disposed of. No order as to
costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J
AKN
HCJ & RRR, J
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
DATE : 23.01.2024
AKN
