The Regional Provident vs M/S G4S Secure Solutions India Pvt ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1444 Kant

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

                      PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

                        AND

      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA

         WRIT APPEAL NO.920 OF 2018 (L-PF)

BETWEEN

1. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT
FUND COMMISSIONER-I,
EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT
FUND ORGANIZATION,
REGIONAL OFFICE,
BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN,
#13, RAJA RAM MOHAN ROY ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 025.

2. THE RECOVERY DEPARTMENT ORGANISATION,
REGIONAL OFFICE,
BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN,
13, RAJA RAM MOHAN ROY ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 025.
                                    ...APPELLANTS

(BY SMT NANDITA D HALDIPUR, ADV.)

AND

1. M/S G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT. LTD.,
#744, 10TH A MAIN, 1ST STAGE,
4TH BLOCK OUTER RING ROAD,
HBR LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 043
REPRESENTED BY ITS HUB LEGALHEAD
BENGALURU, CHENNAI AND HYDERABAD,
MR. R GUNASHEKARAN
                           2




2. THE HSBC BANK
NO.7, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
                                      ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI K.KASTURI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
 SMT. SUBHA ANANATHI, ADV. FOR R1,
 R2-SERVICE HELD SUFFICIENT.)

     THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARANTAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO i) ALLOW THIS
WRIT APPEAL, ii) SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER
PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT
PETITION 1082/2018 DATED 29/1/2018 AT ANNEXURE-A
AND DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION ETC.

     THIS WRIT APPEAL    COMING ON FOR FINAL
HEARING THIS DAY, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA J.,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                     JUDGMENT

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I

along with one another have filed this present appeal

being aggrieved by the order dated 29.01.2018

passed in W.P.No.1082/2018.

2. The facts of the case reveal that an order

was passed under Section 7A of The Employees'

Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act,

1952 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1952' for

short) against the sole respondent fastening the

liability of Rs.16,31,58,755/-.

3. The order was passed on 15.12.2017 and

thereafter, interim order was issued by the appellant

No.1 herein on 02.01.2018 directing the attachment

of the bank account against respondent No.1. The

respondent No.1 before this Court did prefer an appeal

before the appellate authority within 60 days as

provided under the Act of 1952 and by filing a writ

petition raised contention before the learned Single

Judge that no such attachment could have been

ordered specially when he has filed an appeal and has

also preferred an application under Section 7-O of the

Act of 1952 in respect of pre-deposit.

4. Sections 7-I and 7-O of the Act of 1952

reads as under:-

"7-I. Appeals to Tribunal.--(1) Any person aggrieved by a notification issued by the Central Government, or an order passed by the Central Government or any

authority, under the proviso to sub-section (3), or sub-section (4) of section 1, or section 3, or sub-section (1) of section 7A, or section 7B [except an order rejecting an application for review referred to in sub-

section (5) thereof], or section 7C, or section 14B, may prefer an appeal to a Tribunal against such notification or order.

(2) Every appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed in such form and manner, within such time and be accompanied by such fees, as may be prescribed.

7-O. Deposit of amount due, on filing appeal.--No appeal by the employer shall be entertained by a Tribunal unless he has deposited with it seventy-five per cent. of the amount due from him as determined by an officer referred to in section 7A:

Provided that the Tribunal may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, waive or reduce the amount to be deposited under this section."

5. Unfortunately, the appeal was not taken up

by the appellate authority and the Attachment Order

was passed and today also the fact remains that the

appeal has not been taken up by the appellate

authority and no order has been passed in respect of

application preferred under Section 7-O of the Act of

1952 by the appellate authority. The amount, which

was under attachment has been reverted back to

respondent No.1 on account of the order passed by

this Court, which is dated 29.01.2018. Resultantly,

without adverting to the merits of the case, the

present writ appeal stands disposed of with the

following directions:

a) The appellate authority is directed to pass appropriate orders in respect of pre-deposit as provided under Section 7-O of the Act of 1952 within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this Order.

b) The observations made by the learned Singly Judge will not come in the way of the appellate authority.

c) For a period of thirty days, there shall be no coercive action against the respondent No.1.

d) The findings arrived at by the learned Single Judge will not come in way of the Department in future cases as this Court has not decided the matter on merits. The Department shall be free to proceed ahead in accordance with in all other matters as this Court has not passed any order on merits in respect of the issue involved in this present case.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

dn/-

CT-HR