Delhi High Court
Pashok Tea Estate vs Regional Provident Fund ... on 18 September, 2014
$~15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on:18th September, 2014
+ W.P.(C) 4485/2014
PASHOK TEA ESTATE ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr. H.L. Kumar and Mr. S.K.
Gupta, Advs.
versus
REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND
COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT
FUND COMMISSIONER ..... Respondent
Represented by: Ms. Sagari Dhanda, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. Vide the present petition, petitioner has assailed the order dated
21.05.2014 whereby in ATA No.-393(15)2014 the Employees Provident
Fund Appellate Tribunal passed order as under:
"The present appeal has been filed under Section 7 I of the
Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act,
1952 (in short 'the Act') against the order dated 23.04.2014
under Section 14B of the Act to question the validity and
correctness of the order passed by the APFC, Salem. The Ld.
Advocate for the appellant submitted that the appellant was not
given due opportunity of hearing and the respondent has been
functioning in dual capacity.
2. The appellant in the present case has also filed an
application under Section 7(O) of the Act for waiver of the
condition of pre-deposit.
3. Heard and gone through the record. The appellant in the
present case has not made out a prima facie case for total
waiver of the condition of pre-deposit. Hence, to strike the
balance between the parties at this stage the appellant is
directed to deposit 30% of the determined amount with the
respondent authority within four weeks of this order. Subject to
the said deposit the appeal is admitted for consideration. The
operation of the impugned order is stayed and the respondent
authority is directed not to take any coercive measure till the
disposal of the present appeal. The notice for respondent is
accepted by Ms. Shrabani Chakrabarty, Advocate returnable by
23.09.2014. List the case for reply and further order for 23 rd of
September, 2014.
2. Mr. H.L. Kumar, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
has submitted that the pre-deposit amount is not required to be deposited and
this issue has been settled by this Court in numerous judgments.
3. Mr. Kumar has relied upon a case of M/s. Old Village Industries Ltd.
v. the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees' Provident
Fund Organisation & Anr. 2005 LLR 552 whereby this Court held as
under:
"The power to waive or reduce the amount to be deposited is
relatively to the amount determined by the Officer under section
7A of the Act. In order words, the pre-requisite of deposit of
75% of the demanded amount applicable to an order passed
under section 7A and not to other provisions. The Legislature in
its own wisdom has restricted the application of the provisions
of section 7(1) to the order passed under section 7A. Such
provisions are to be construed strictly and cannot be given a
wider meaning so as to create a liability which is intended to be
correct to the entertainment of an appeal. The liability to deposit
arises in the situation strictly contemplated under the provisions
of this section. There is nothing in the section so as to extend its
application to an order passed under section 14B of the Act. An
employer has a right to prefer an appeal against an order under
section 14B, under section 7(1) of the Act but the pre-condition
of deposit for entertainment of such an appeal is not covered
under section 7-(O) of the Act. Thus, I have no hesitation in
rejecting the contention of the respondents that it would be
mandatory for the employer to deposit 75% of such amount
before appeal can be entertained or even that there cannot be
stay of recovery of the said amount by the Appellate Authority.
The argument raised on behalf of the respondents would be
untenable even for another reason that damage is the
consequence of the demand raised under section 7A of the Act.
The provisions of section 14B of the Act attracted only if there is
default on the part of the employer. It being a consequential
liability essentially must fall in a category of not the principal
liability to attract stringent provisions of pre-deposit to the
hearing of the appeal. Such provisions being related to revenue
would be construed strictly whether to the advantage or
disadvantage of the person upon whom the liability is sought to
be fastened. Once the provisions of section 7-O does not include
an appeal against an order under section 14B then it would be
in no way permissible to include such an order by implication or
otherwise.
4. Similar view has been taken by this Court in W.P.(C) Nos. 1148/2010
and W.P.(C) 3176/2013 decided on 24.02.2010 and15.05.2013 respectively.
5. In view of above, order dated 21.05.2014 is hereby set aside.
6. Accordingly, instant petition is allowed with no order as to costs.
CM. No. 8947/2014
With the disposal of the instant petition, instant application has
become infructuous and disposed of as such.
SURESH KAIT, J
SEPTEMBER 18, 2014
jg
