Gujarat High Court
M/S Hindustan Copper Limited vs Assistant Provident Fund ... on 30 March, 2022
Bench: A.S. Supehia
C/SCA/10785/2018 ORDER DATED: 30/03/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10785 of 2018
================================================================
M/S HINDUSTAN COPPER LIMITED
Versus
ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER
================================================================
Appearance:
MR YH VYAS(1001) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
MS E.SHAILAJA(2671) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
Date : 30/03/2022
ORAL ORDER
1. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order
dated 20.03.2018 passed by the Competent Authority under the
provisions of Section 14B of the Employees' Provident Funds And
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short "the EPF Act").
2. Learned advocate Mr.Y.H.Vyas appearing for the petitioners has
submitted that the said order was challenged by the petitioners before the
Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (CGIT/Tribunal) by
filing an appeal under Section 7-I of the EPF Act, which was rejected by
the order dated 19.05.2018. He has submitted that due to undertaking,
which was given by the Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd.
(ARCIL) before this Court in the proceedings of Company Application
No.16 of 2015 in Company Petition No.295 of 2008 and in lieu thereof, it
was the responsibility of the said company to ensure that the amount due
to any worker has been disbursed in accordance with the provisions of
Section 529 of the Companies Act. Thus, it is submitted that provident
fund liability cannot be fastened upon the petitioner. No further
submissions are advanced.
C/SCA/10785/2018 ORDER DATED: 30/03/2022
3. Per contra, learned advocate Ms.E.Sahilaja appearing for the
respondent authority has submitted that the impugned order does not
require any interference since the petitioners have failed to challenge the
orders passed under Section 14B of the EPF Act assessing the amount of
damages as well as the interest and straightaway they approached the
Tribunal challenging the order passed under Section 17B of the EPF Act,
which was not permissible since the Tribunal does not have any authority.
It is further submitted by her that the orders passed under Section 14B of
the EPF Act were time barred and hence, the Tribunal did not interfere,
however, she has submitted that even the prayers of the appeal, which
were filed by the petitioner did not ever mention the challenge of the
orders passed under Section 14B of the EPF Act. Thus, she has submitted
that the writ petition may not be entertained.
4. The fact, which is established from the record, is that by the orders
dated 15.02.2018 passed by the respondent authorities under the
provisions of Section 14B of the EPF Act, the damages of Rs.19,142 has
been assessed from the period February, 1999 to 2017. By the orders of
even date, after calculating interest as well as damages, for different
period, the authority has passed the orders under Section 14B of the EPF
Act and on the very same date, the orders under Section 7Q of the EPF
Act for leavy of the interest was also passed. All the orders have been
passed on 15.02.2018. It appears that, thereafter, the petitioner filed a
representation dated 13.03.2018 to recall the aforesaid orders, which has
been rejected by the impugned order dated 20.03.2018. Being aggrieved,
the petitioner filed an appeal before the Tribunal, which was rejected by
the order dated 09.05.2018.
5. At this stage, it would be apposite to incorporate the prayer clause
C/SCA/10785/2018 ORDER DATED: 30/03/2022
made in the appeal filed by the petitioner:-
"(e) In the premises aforesaid, the applicant most respectfully prays
that:
(i) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow and admit the
present application.
(ii) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the Appeal, this
Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to stay the judgment and order
dated 20.3.2018 passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner,
Bharuch order no.GJ/RO/BRH/14B & 7Q/DAM/31085/502/2341, dated
20.3.2018 in the interest of justice.
(iii) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to restrain the
respondent from recovering the contribution under the Employees
Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, from the
appellant and further be pleased to restrain the respondent from taking
any coercive action with regard to recovering the contribution under the
Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952,
from the appellant, in the interest of justice"
6. The Tribunal passed the following order dated 09.05.2018 rejecting
the appeal:-
"The appeal could not be received on account of following
reasons:
(i) The 14-B Border (two) both dated 15/02/18 are time barred. No
condonation of delay application filed.
(ii) One order dt:20/3/18 has been assailed which though applied 14-B
& 7 order in a 17-B order which n falls outside the jurisdiction of the
Hon'ble CGIT, Ahmedabad"
7. A bare perusal of the prayer clause of the appeal filed by the
petitioner under Section 7-I of the EPF Act would reveal that the
petitioner did not challenge the orders passed under Sections 14B and 7Q
of the EPF Act and has only prayed for quashing and setting aside the
order dated 20.03.2018. The Tribunal vide order dated 09.05.2018,
rejected the appeal by observing that the 14-B orders dated 15.02.2018
are time barred and secondly, apropos the order dated 20.03.2018, it is
observed that it falls outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Thus, though
C/SCA/10785/2018 ORDER DATED: 30/03/2022
there was no prayer made in the appeal filed by the petitioners seeking
quashing and setting aside the order passed under Section 14-B of the
EPF Act, the Tribunal has not entertained the same as having become
time barred.
8. The order dated 20.03.2018 is not interfered with since the
Tribunal lacks the jurisdiction. The same is challenged before this Court.
The aforesaid facts suggest that the impugned order dated 20.03.2018 is
premised on the orders passed dated 15.02.2018 under the provisions of
Sections 14B and 7Q of the EPF Act. The petitioner has not disputed that
the aforesaid orders dated 15.02.2018 are not challenged by him. Thus,
the impugned order dated 20.03.2018, which is premised on the orders
dated 15.02.2018 cannot be interfered in wake of the fact that the same
are not challenged within the limitation period before the Tribunal.
9. Under the circumstances and in light of the aforesaid facts, the writ
petition fails. Notice is discharged.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
ABHISHEK/2
