Delhi High Court
Central Board Of Trustees, Epf ... vs Employees Provident Fund ... on 19 September, 2016
$~10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgement Delivered on 19th September, 2016
+ W.P.(C) 50/2016 & CM No.264/2016
CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES, EPF THROUGH:
ASSISTANT P.F. COMMISSIONER, LEGAL, DELHI (NORTH)
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Puneet Garg, Advocate.
Versus
EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL &
ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
NAJMI WAZIRI, J. (Oral)
1. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that name of the
respondent No.1/Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal ('Tribunal')
be deleted from the array of the parties. Let it be so done. An amended
memo of parties be filed within two weeks from today.
2. The respondent No.2 has been served on 04.05.2016. Yet none
appeared for the said respondent on 04.05.2016 nor is there any
representation by the said respondent today.
3. The impugned order dated 12.08.2015 had directed the petitioner to
file its reply, subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/-, to the appeal
preferred by the respondent under Rule 12(1) of the Employees Provident
Fund Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997 ('1997 Rules').
4. It is the petitioner's case that on 12.03.2015 the Tribunal had directed
the appellant to deposit the assessed amount under Section 7-Q of the Act in
30 days thereof with intimation of the same to the Registry. It was clarified
that in default of the deposit the appeal would be deemed to be dismissed
and 7-Q order would be stayed only if the deposit as directed was made.
The petitioner (respondent in the appeal) was directed to file a reply to the
appeal under Rule 12(1) of the 1997 Rules. The case was posted for
compliance on 12.08.2015. It is the petitioner's case that since the deposit
was not made in 30 days the appeal stood automatically dismissed, hence
there was no requirement of filing a reply to it.
5. Nevertheless, when the case was next listed on 12.08.2015, the
Tribunal examined the compliance of its order apropos the deposit of the 7-
Q amount and the filing of reply of the respondent. It evidently treated the
appeal as subsisting because the deposit had been made, however, since a
reply had not been filed on behalf of the present petitioner under the Rules,
the aforesaid cost was imposed. The Tribunal reasoned that under Rule
12(1) a contesting respondent is required to file a reply within one month of
service of the notice of the appeal. This notice was served upon the present
petitioner on 11.05.2015 and as per the direction they were supposed to file
a reply within the time specified. The Tribunal held that in the absence of
non-filing of the reply the appeal was to be admitted in toto, but since the
beneficiaries were not to be deprived of their due rights on account of
negligence of the respondent, such precipitate action would not be
appropriate hence in the interest of justice the aforesaid cost of Rs. 10,000/-
was imposed.
6. The Court is of the view that there was a specific direction and in
terms of Rule 12(1) the respondent was to file a reply within 30 days of
service of notice to the appeal. Furthermore since the requisite amount
under 7-Q was credited to the EPF account on 17.06.2015, it would not have
been prudent for the respondent to await the effect of the said deposit in
view of the order dated 11.05.2015. It was open to the petitioner to have
argued after filing of the reply that no appeal existed since the deposit was
made after 30 days of the direction of the Tribunal. However, after the
deposit was made on 17.06.2015, the 30 day period for filing a reply
commenced. The petitioner should have filed the reply in the said period or
in such further time as the Tribunal may have granted it. Since the petitioner
did not file the reply within the required time, it was open to the Tribunal to
impose costs.
7. The Court finds no reason to interfere with the said order. The
petition is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed.
NAJMI WAZIRI
(JUDGE)
SEPTEMBER 19, 2016
sb
