Delhi High Court
Rfb Latex Private Limited vs Central Board Of Trustees (Cbt) & ... on 23 October, 2018
$~36
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 23rd October, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 11422/2018 & CM Nos. 44159-44160/2018
RFB LATEX PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. B.B. Pradhan and
Mr.Kishore Kumar Behuria, Advs.
versus
CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES (CBT)
& ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Satpal Singh, SC-EPFO
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
1. The prayers in this writ petition read thus:
"a. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of
certiorarito the Ld. Presiding Officer Central Government
Industrial Tribunal, New Delhi, to allow the Application for
condonation of delay in complying the order dated 19.07.2018
passed in Appeal No. D-2/15/2018,titled as "M/s. RFB Latex
Limited V/s Central Board of Trustees and another".
b. Allow extension of time for deposit of Rs. 12,00,000/-
as per the order dated 19.07.2018 and grant stay against the
order dated 06.06.2018 passed by the Respondent no.2.
c. passed an order for de-attach the Bank account of
Petitioner.
d. Pass any other further order /relief as this Hon'ble
Court deem fit and proper in favour of the petitioner and
against the respondents in the present facts and circumstances
of the case"
2. The petitioner had appealed, to the Employees Provident Fund
Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the "learned Tribunal"),
challenging the order dated 24th April, 2014, passed by the learned
Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Noida, whereby the
petitioner was directed to deposit Rs.18,84,480/-, under Section 14B
of the Employees Provident Fund Act, 1952, and Rs.9,28,717/- under
Section 7Q of the said Act, in respect of the short paid dues of
provident fund in respect of the period February, 2003 to July, 2013.
3. Vide order dated 19th July, 2018, the learned Tribunal granted
stay of operation of the order of the Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner subject to deposit, by the petitioner, of Rs.12 lakhs,
within two months. The matter was directed to be renotified on 9th
October, 2018, for reporting compliance.
4. It appears that, though pre-deposit of Rs.12 lakhs, as directed by
the learned Tribunal, in fact, was deposited by the petitioner, the
deposit was effected 20 days late, i.e. on 9th October, 2018.
5. The petitioner, in these circumstances, moved an application,
before the learned Tribunal, for condonation of delay of 20 days in
making pre-deposit of Rs.12 lakhs.
6. The said application came up before the learned Tribunal on 9 th
October, 2018. Vide an order passed on the said date, the learned
Tribunal issued notice on the application and directed that the
application be put up on 13th December, 2018 "for reply and
consideration".
7. As the learned Tribunal is seized, at the instance of the
petitioner itself of the issue of the delay in effecting pre-deposit, and
the justifiability, or otherwise of the condonation thereof, it is obvious
that the petitioner cannot maintain a parallel proceeding before this
Court on the same issue.
8. As such, this writ petition does not appear to be maintainable.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that he
moved this Court only because coercive steps are being initiated
against his client, as the learned Tribunal did not extend the earlier
order of stay granted by it.
10. I do not see how there could be any question of extending the
earlier order of stay, when the Tribunal has fixed the issue of delay in
effecting pre-deposit, for consideration on 13th December, 2018.
Prima facie, it appears that the question of extending stay, would arise
only once the said delay was condoned and the pre-deposit was
accepted, as stay was granted conditional to effecting pre-deposit.
11. Nevertheless, it would be open to the petitioner, in case any
coercive steps are being taken, to move the Tribunal in that regard.
This Court cannot, in the above fact situation, pass any orders granting
relief to the petitioner against such coercive steps.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw this
writ petition with liberty to move the Tribunal seeking ad interim
relief against coercive steps, which, according to him are being
initiated against his client.
13. Leave and liberty as prayed for is granted. The petitioner may
move the learned Tribunal, if so advised, seeking ad interim relief in
respect of the coercive steps, which according to him, his client is
being subjected.
14. It is made clear that this order does not amount to be an opinion,
an expression of opinion, one or the another, on the petitioner, would
not be entitled to ad interim relief, or for stay of any coercive steps
being taken against it. This is an aspect which would have to be
decided by the learned Tribunal on the petitioner making an
appropriate application before it in that regard.
15. Subject to the above observations, this writ petition is disposed
of with no orders as to costs.
16. Copy of this order be given dasti under signatures of the Court
Master.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J
OCTOBER 23, 2018/kr
