Delhi High Court
V.B. Secrity Services vs Assistant Provident Fund ... on 4 February, 2015
Author: Deepa Sharma
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1085/2015
% Judgement pronounced on: 04.02.2015
V.B. SECRITY SERVICES ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr S.K. Gupta, Adv.
versus
ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER
..... Respondent
Through: Mr Arvind Kumar Verma and
Mr Abhinav Ashok, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. Issue notice. Mr. Arvind Kumar Verma, Advocate accepts notice on
behalf of the respondent.
2. Heard.
3. The petitioner in the present writ petition has challenged the order of
Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as
'the Appellate Tribunal') dated 31.10.2014.
4. In the present case, the respondent had issued a show-cause notice
dated 24.05.2012 against the petitioner under Section 14B and 7Q of
Employee's Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952
(hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the period from February, 2009 to
August, 2011.
5. On 08.05.2013, the respondent being quasi-judicial authority has
passed the order under Section 14B and 7Q against the petitioner-
Establishment and imposed the damages and interest upon it. On
24.10.2014, the petitioner had challenged the said order by way of appeal
under Section 7-I of the Act before the Appellate Tribunal and the same
appeal was registered as ATA No.1112(6)2014. It is submitted that on
31.10.2014, the Appellate Tribunal had admitted the appeal and
simultaneously directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 15,00,000/- with the
respondent within four weeks. It is submitted that the said order of the
Appellate Tribunal is against the settled principle of law. It is submitted that
the pre-deposit is not required, if assessed under Section 14B of the Act in
view of the various decisions of this Court. Reliance has been placed on
M/s. Old Village Industries Ltd. v. the Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner, Employees' Provident Fund Organisation & Anr. 2005
LLR 552 and also on H.K. Corporation vs. Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner, W.P.,(C) No.8737/2014, decided on 10.12.2014.
6. In M/s. Old Village Industries Ltd. (supra), this Court has 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."
7. Similar view has been taken by this Court in W.P.(C) No.8737/2014,
(supra) and W.P.(C) Nos. 1148/2010 and 3176/2013 decided on
24.02.20110 and 15.05.2013 respectively.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent has not disputed the law settled by
this Court in the case of M/s. Old Village Industries Ltd. (supra).
9. In view of the settled principle of law, the order dated 31.10.2014 of
the Appellate Tribunal is modified to the effect that the appeal be heard by
the Tribunal, without insisting upon the pre-deposit of Rs. 15,00,000/-.
10. In view of the above, the petition is allowed with no order as to costs.
CM No.1937/2015 (stay)
CM No.1937/2015 has become infructuous and the same is also
disposed of.
DEEPA SHARMA
(JUDGE)
FEBRUARY 04, 2015
BG
