M/S D.M.Constructors vs Regional Provident Fund ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 785 Cal

23.02.2022
rc/ct.no.10
Item No.100
                             WPA No. 16845 of 2021
                              M/s D.M.Constructors
                                     Versus
                 Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II & Anr.

                              (VIA VIDEO CONFERENCE)

                    Mr. Ravi Kumar Dubey               ....for the petitioner

                    Mr. Ujjwal Datta       ...for the respondents no.1&2

Being aggrieved by the order dated March 22/23,

2021 of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II,

Regional Office Barrackpore imposing penal damages on

the petitioner under Section 14B of the Employees

Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952,

the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal, Kolkata Bench

(hereinafter referred to as the "said Tribunal") which was

registered as EPF 03/2021. During pendency of the appeal

a notice for recovery of the arrear dues was slapped on the

petitioner on September 20, 2021 by the Recovery Officer

demanding payment of the entire arrear amount

immediately.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner submits that as the said Tribunal is not

functioning for quite sometime, the petitioner is not in a

position to seek redressal before the said Tribunal. The

petitioner is left remediless with the notice of the Recovery

Officer knocking the door. He has placed reliance on the

judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Sahara India Life

Insurance Company Limited, Lucknow Vs. Union of India

& Ors. reported in 2022 LLR 82 wherein the Hon'ble Court

has observed that no coercive action can be taken by the

EPF authority during pendency of appeal against the order

passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II.

Pursuant to the direction of this Court the entire due

amount has been secured by the petitioner by depositing

the same before the learned Registrar General of this Court

and there is an interim stay of operation of the notice

impugned till a limited period of time.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents no. 1

and 2 challenges the maintainability of the writ petition on

the ground that the petitioner is debarred from challenging

the order impugned before two alternative forums and the

impugned order is neither irregular nor illegal.

It is admitted position that the said Tribunal is not

functioning at present and the appeal preferred by the

petitioner before said Tribunal is subjudice. The entire due

amount has been secured by the petitioner.

In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of

requesting the said Tribunal to dispose of the appeal being

EPF 03/2021 filed by the petitioner pending before it as

expeditiously as the business of the said Tribunal permits.

Interim order granted on October 08, 2021 shall

continue till the disposal of the appeal.

With the above observations and directions this writ

petition being WPA No. 16845 of 2021 is disposed of.

There shall be, however, no order as to costs.

Since no affidavit is invited, the allegations

contained in the petition are deemed not to be admitted.

Urgent certified website copy of this order, if applied

for, be furnished to the parties upon compliance of

necessary formalities.

(Suvra Ghosh,J)