Yashodeep Swayam Rojgar Seva ... vs The Assistant Provident Fund ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 6702 Bom

                                                      *1*                         920.wp.5492.16


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                                                    
                                 WRIT PETITION NO. 5492 OF 2016




                                                            
    Yashodeep Swayam Rojgar Seva
    Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Latur.
    Tq. and Dist.Latur.




                                                           
    Through its Chairman.
    Dattatraya s/o Nagorao Mohanalkar,
    Age : 53 years, Occupation : Business,
    Presently R/o Ujawala Terrace,
    Plot No.20, Raikar Nagar,




                                                
    Dyayari, Pune.
                                      ig               ...PETITIONER

              -VERSUS-
                                    
    The Assistant Provident Fund 
    Commissioner, Employees Provident
    Fund Organization, Cantonment Board
    Building, Golibar Maidan,
       

    Pune.
                                                       ...RESPONDENT
    



                                               ...
                          Advocate for Petitioner : Shri Irpatgire A.N.. 
                         Advocate for Respondent : Shri K.B.Chaudhari.





                                               ...

                                           CORAM:  RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

DATE :- 25th November, 2016

Oral Judgment :

1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the

consent of the parties.

                                                        *2*                           920.wp.5492.16


    2               The   Petitioner   is   aggrieved   by   the   order   dated   04.08.2015 




                                                                                       

delivered by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi

by which Appeal ATA No.30(9) of 2015 is dismissed for want of

prosecution as the direction to pre-deposit an amount has not been

complied with.

3 Shri Irpatgire, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, placed on

record a communication from the State Bank of India dated 03.07.2015

addressed to the Recovery Officer-cum- Assistant Provident Fund

Commissioner which is accompanied with the copy of the Demand Draft

dated 03.07.2015 for an amount of Rs.61,03,962/-. The compilation of

documents (three pages) is taken on record and marked as Exhibit X

collectively for identification.

4 Shri Chaudhari, learned Advocate for the Respondent,

confirms Exhibit X and submits that the entire amount assessed under

Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous

Provisions Act, 1952 (for short "the 1952 Act") is recovered from the

Principal Employer. The amount of Rs.14 lac which is due from the

Petitioner has also been recovered.

    5               It requires no debate that under Section 7-O of the 1952 Act, 





                                                               *3*                          920.wp.5492.16

75% of the amount assessed under Section 7-A proceedings have to be

deposited when an appeal is preferred under Section 7-I before the

Appellate Tribunal. By the impugned order, the appeal has been dismissed

for non prosecution as the mandate of Section 7-O was not complied with

by the Petitioner.

6 Considering Exhibit X and the statements made by the

learned Advocates, the entire amount has been recovered. In the light of

the above, this Writ Petition is partly allowed. The impugned order dated

04.08.2015 is quashed and set aside and Appeal ATA No.30(9) of 2015 is

remitted to the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi.

The litigating sides shall appear before the Tribunal on 19.12.2016 and

shall continue to participate in the proceedings on the dates on which the

Tribunal may post the matter for hearing. Formal notices need not be

issued by the Tribunal to the litigating sides. Needless to state, all the

contentions of the litigating sides are kept open for the Tribunal to decide

on their own merits.

7 Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.

    kps                                                        (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)