M/S Ujjawal Enterprises (Regd.) ... vs Central Board Of Trustees
2015 Latest Caselaw 8005 Del

I-19 & 20
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                   Date of Decision: October 16, 2015

(i)    +      W.P.(C) 9905/2015

       M/S UJJAWAL ENTERPRISES (REGD)
       THROUGH: SANJAY GANDHI                   ..... Petitioner
                     Through: Mr. Rajiv Arora, Advocate

                          versus

       CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES
       THROUGH: A.P.F.C.                      ..... Respondent
                     Through: Mr. Keshav Mohan, Advocate

(ii)   +     W.P.(C) 9909/2015

       M/S G.R. MECHANICAL WORKS P LTD THROUGH:
       RACHHPAL SINGH SIDHU                     ..... Petitioner
                     Through: Mr. Rajiv Arora, Advocate

                          versus

       CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES
       THROUGH: A.P.F.C.                      ..... Respondent
                     Through: Mr. Keshav Mohan, Advocate

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

                          JUDGMENT

CM No. 23956/2015 in W.P.(C).9905/2015 (Exemption) CM No. 23961/2015 in W.P.(C).9909/2015 (Exemption)

Allowed subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(C) No. 9905/2015 & CM No.23955/2015 (Stay) W.P.(C) No. 9909/2015 & CM No.23960/2015 (Stay)

In the above-captioned first petition, the challenge is to the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner's order of 3rd July, 2015 vide which, the interest component under Section 7-Q of Employees' Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 has been determined whereas in the above-captioned second petition, the challenge is to the impugned order of 15th July, 2015 vide which similar determination has been undertaken.

Since the challenge to the impugned orders in these two petitions is on identical grounds, therefore, both the petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by the common judgment.

To assail the impugned orders in the above-captioned two petitions, learned counsel for petitioners relies upon this Court's order of 1st October, 2015 in W.P.(C) 8740/2015 titled M/s Blood Bank Organisation v. Central Board of Trustees in which Rule has been issued and the operation of the impugned order has been stayed till final determination of the damages under Section 14-B of the Employees' Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. In the order of 1st October, 2015 in M/s Blood Bank (supra), this Court has taken into consideration Full Bench decision of this Court in Roma Henny Security Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Central Board of Trustees, E.P.F. Organisation 192(2012) DLT 486, although the same is subjudiced before the Apex Court.

Learned counsel for respondent submits that Apex Court in Arcot Textile Mills Limited v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and Ors. (2013) 16 SCC 1 has held that order under Section 7-Q of the Employees' Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 is not appealable but the aggrieved party is not remediless as it would have right to file an objection pertaining to the computation and the said objection has to be decided by the competent authority. So, it is submitted that petitioners ought to file objections.

At this stage, learned counsel for petitioners points out that in the above-captioned first petition a representation of 9 th September, 2014 was made to the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner regarding the computation under Section 7-Q of Employees' Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 but the impugned order is silent on it.

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for parties had sought to rely upon decisions of 21st September, 2015 in LPA 629/2011 Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner v. Hi-Tech Vocational Training Centre, System and Stamping & Anr. v. Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal & Ors. (2008) 2 LLJ 939 (Del), State of Haryana v. Maruti Udyog Ltd. & Ors. (2000) 7 SCC 348 and Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank Limited v. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and Ors. (2009) 10 SCC 123 in support of their respective submissions but this Court finds that larger issue raised by learned counsel for petitioners is not required to be gone into in these proceedings in the facts and circumstances of this case.

This Court deems to fit to direct that against the impugned orders, petitioners be permitted to file their respective Objections on the pleas

taken herein within a period of four weeks and if they require any calculation sheet etc. then the same be supplied within two weeks of the demand. Let the said Objections be decided by the concerned Assistant EPF Commissioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the same. The fate of the Objections be conveyed to the petitioners within a week thereafter.

In Arcot Textile (supra) while taking note of the fact that the Employees' Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 is a piece of social legislation, petitioner there was directed to deposit a certain sum of amount within a period of four weeks and if the said amount was not deposited then the right to file objections stood extinguished. In the instant case also, this Court finds that it would be appropriate to direct petitioners herein to deposit a sum of `1 lac each with the competent authority in relation to the impugned orders and if petitioners fail to do so then the right given to petitioners to file objections shall stand extinguished. Needless to say, if petitioners are dissatisfied with the fate of the Objections, then they shall be at liberty to avail of the remedies as available in law.

With aforesaid directions, both the petitions and applications are disposed of while not commenting upon the impugned orders, lest it may prejudice either side.

(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE OCTOBER 16, 2015 vn