Bombay High Court
M/S Indira Gandhi Through Its ... vs The Assistant Provident Fund ... on 4 October, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
*1* 902.wp.6669.16
IN THE HI;GH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 6669 OF 2016
M/s Indira Gandhi (Urdu) D.Ed. College,
(Tyre Board) Qudwai Nagar, Nanded-431604.
Through its:- Principal/ Authorized Signatory
Shri Shaikh Salam Bavazeer,
Age : 63 years, Occupation : Authorized Signatory,
R/o Nanded.
...PETITIONER
-VERSUS-
The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner,
Employees Provident Fund Organization,
Sub Regional Office at Town Centre, CIDCO,
Aurangabad,
Taluka and District Aurangabad.
...RESPONDENT.
...
Advocate for Petitioners : Shri Sagar S Vidwans.
Advocate for Respondent : Shri K.b.Chaudhari.
...
CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
DATE :- 04th October, 2016
Oral Judgment :
1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the
consent of the parties.
2 The Petitioner/ Educational Institution is before this Court
*2* 902.wp.6669.16
challenging the order dated 27.04.2016 passed by the Appellate Provident
Fund Tribunal as well as the order dated 22.01.2015 passed by the
Respondent Authority under Section 7-A of the Employees' Provident Fund
and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.
3 This Court by order dated 07.04.2016 passed in Writ Petition
No.3854/2016, had permitted the Petitioner to prefer an appeal under
Section 7-I of the 1952 Act. The said appeal was filed within 15 days from
the date of the order of this Court, on 22.04.2016. By the impugned order
dated 27.04.2016, the Appellate Tribunal declined to condone the delay
on the ground that the appeal is time barred.
4 I have heard the learned Advocates for the respective sides.
5 The Respondent/ Provident Fund Authority by the order
dated 22.01.2015 under Section 7-A has assessed the provident fund dues
for Rs.26,79,010/-.
6 Shri Chaudhari, learned Advocate for the Respondent,
submits that the main grievance of the Petitioner is that the Institution
was not given an adequate opportunity of hearing and hence, is seeking a
remand of the Section 7-A proceedings. If the Petitioner deposits the entire
*3* 902.wp.6669.16
amount with the Respondent, the prayer for rehearing of the matter may
be considered. However, if the amount is not deposited, this petition
deserves to be dismissed.
7 The learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits, on
instructions from the authorized representative present in the Court, that
an amount of Rs.4,25,000/- has been deposited earlier in connection with
the same Section 7-A proceedings. The Petitioner is prepared to deposit
50% of the assessed amount keeping in view the earlier amount deposited
and is willing to be subjected to any condition including a time frame for a
rehearing under Section 7-A and the other provisions of the 1952 Act.
8 It is apparent that the Respondent is making every effort to
recover the amounts due. If 50% of the amount is deposited, the
Respondent would succeed in recovering at least that much amount.
Rather than remanding the matter, considering the prayer of the Petitioner
that the Institution be given an opportunity of hearing, I, therefore, deem
it proper to impose a condition on the Petitioner of depositing 50% of the
assessed amount.
9 In the light of the peculiar facts as above, this Writ Petition is
partly allowed and the proceedings are remitted to the Respondent
*4* 902.wp.6669.16
Authority at Aurangabad on the following conditions:-
(a) The impugned order dated 22.01.2015 shall be kept in
abeyance.
(b) The Petitioner/ Institution shall deposit an amount of
Rs.9,25,000/- (Rupees Nine Lac Twenty Five Thousand) with
the Respondent at Aurangabad on or before 08.11.2016 and
shall not seek an extension for any reason.
(c) The amount of Rs.4,25,000/- (Rupees Four Lac Twenty Five
Thousand) already deposited shall be taken into account
while deciding the Section 7-A proceedings.
(d) After the amount as directed above is deposited by the
Petitioner, the order of attaching the bank account No.16745
of the Petitioner held with the Bombay Mercantile Bank, Main
Branch, M.G. Road, Nanded, shall be recalled and the said
bank account shall be released.
(e) If the above amount is deposited, the Respondent shall
commence the hearing under Section 7-A from 08.11.2016
and the Petitioner shall continue to appear before the
Respondent Authority on such dates on which the matter may
be posted by the said Authority.
(f) The Petitioner shall produce such records as it may deem fit
and proper.
*5* 902.wp.6669.16
(g) The Respondent shall be at liberty to direct the Petitioner to
produce such records as it finds necessary for deciding the
Section 7-A proceedings.
(h) Failure on the part of the Petitioner to produce the records as
directed above, shall give the Respondent the right to draw an
adverse inference.
(i) The Petitioner shall not seek adjournment and shall cooperate
with the Respondent for the expeditious disposal of the
proceedings.
(j) Considering the pendency of the proceedings, the Respondent
shall conclude the hearing in the matter on or before
31.01.2017 and shall pass a reasoned order on or before
28.02.2017.
(k) After the final order is passed under Section 7-A, the
impugned order dated 22.01.2015 shall lose it's efficacy.
However, if the above conditions (b) to (i) are not complied
with by the Petitioner, the Respondent shall restore the order
dated 22.01.2015 and shall be at liberty to seek execution of
the same.
(l) Consequentially, the impugned order of the Appellate
Tribunal dated 27.04.2016 is rendered redundant.
(m) All contentions of the parties are kept open.
*6* 902.wp.6669.16
10 Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.
kps (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
