Employees Provident Fund ... vs Hema Higher Secondary School
2023 Latest Caselaw 900 MP

                                                            1
                           IN    THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                AT JABALPUR
                                                       BEFORE
                                       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
                                              ON THE 16 th OF JANUARY, 2023
                                            WRIT PETITION No. 14677 of 2017

                          BETWEEN:-
                          EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND     ORGANIZATION
                          THROUGH REGIONAL P.F. COMMISSIONER 1 SHRI
                          SHYAM SUNDER PRASAD SUB REGIONAL OFFICE,
                          BHOPAL 59, ARERA HILLS BHOPAL (MADHYA
                          PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....PETITIONER
                          (BY SHRI J.K. PILLAI, ADVOCATE)

                          AND
                          HEMA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL THR. SECURITY
                          LINE, GOVINDPURA, BHEL BHOPAL (MADHYA
                          PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....RESPONDENTS
                          (BY SHRI UTTAM MAHESHWARI, ADVOCATE)

                                This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                          following:
                                                             ORDER

Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 05/01/2017 (Annexure P/4) passed by Employees Provident Fund, Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Case No.PFC/SRO/BPL/ENF/MP/4416/240.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there was two separate orders by the Regional Provident Fund, Commissioner whereby one order was passed under Section 7 A of the Employees' Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions, 1952 and the other order was passed under Section 14 B of the Employees' Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions, 1952. It is contended Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASTHA SEN Signing time: 1/18/2023 4:47:45 PM

by the counsel that there was no composite order so as to attract challenge the findings recorded under Section 7 Q of Employees' Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions, 1952.

It is contended by the counsel that an order passed under Section 7 Q of Employees' Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions, 1952 is not appealable under Section 7 I of the Employees' Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions, 1952, thus, the order impugned on this count alone, deserves to be quashed. To support his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance in the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Arcot Textile Mills Ltd. Vs. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

and Ors. in Civil Appeal No.9488/2013.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that a perusal of the order dated 11/04/2016 passed under Section 7 Q of Employees' Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions, 1952 and also the other order which was passed on the same day passed under Section 14 B Employees' Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions, 1952, reflects that there was no independent application of mind and both the orders are identical expect concluding paragraphs. Therefore, a composite appeal assailing both the orders was filed before the Employees' Provident Fund Tribunal which has been allowed. However, learned counsel for the respondent does not dispute that the aspect as regards maintainability of an appeal under an order passed under Section 7 Q of Employees' Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions, 1952 has not been taken into consideration by the Appellate Authority while passing the order dated 05/01/2017 which was the preliminary objection submitted by the petitioner herein before the Appellate Authority.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASTHA SEN Signing time: 1/18/2023 4:47:45 PM

In view of the aforesaid submission it is undisputed that the Tribunal has not considered the aspect as regards maintainability of an appeal against an order passed under Section 7 Q of Employees' Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions, 1952, therefore, the order dated 05/01/2017 (Annexure P/4) stands quashed and the matter is remitted back to the Appellate Authority. The parties have apprised of that the appeal now lies before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Jabalpur and it is further informed that at present the Presiding Officer is not available.

In view of the aforesaid, it is directed that the appeal shall be decided afresh within a period of 90 days from the date of taking over the charge by the Presiding Officer in Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Jabalpur.

It is also clarified that in case the records are not transferred to Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Jabalpur by the Employees' Provident Fund Tribunal, New Delhi the parties would be at liberty to file appeal afresh assailing the order passed by the E.P.F.O. under Section 14 B & 7 Q of the Employees' Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions, 1952.

With the aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of.

(MANINDER S. BHATTI) JUDGE Astha

Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASTHA SEN Signing time: 1/18/2023 4:47:45 PM