Telangana High Court
M/S. Mamata Educational Socy, ... vs Presiding Officer, Epf, New Delhi ... on 20 September, 2022
Bench: K.Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
WRIT PETITION No.3110 OF 2011
ORAL ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. B. Manoj Kumar,
learned counsel for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3.
2. Perusal of the record would reveal that respondent No.2 had
passed order under Sections - 7Q and 14B of the Employees Provident
Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short 'Act, 1952')
determining an amount of Rs.5,37,854/- towards damages and
Rs.1,79,636/- towards interest.
3. Challenging the said order passed under Section - 14B of the
Act, 1952, the petitioner herein had preferred an appeal under Section 7-I
of the Act, 1952 vide A.T.A. No.486 (1) of 2005. Vide order dated
08.12.2010, the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New
Delhi dismissed the said appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
respondent No.2 had passed the aforesaid order without serving notice
on the petitioner and without giving an opportunity. Though a specific
ground was raised in the appeal, the Tribunal has not considered the said
fact. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the impugned order dated
KL,J
W.P. No.3110 of 2011
08.12.2010 passed by the Appellate Tribunal is not on consideration of
actual facts.
5. Perusal of the grounds of appeal filed by the petitioner would
reveal that the petitioner herein has specifically contended that
respondent No.2 without giving an opportunity and without serving
notice passed the aforesaid order quantifying the damages of
Rs.5,37,854/- for a period from April, 2000 to July, 2001.
RespondentNo.2 has referred to certain judgments, which, in fact, are not
applicable to the facts of the case on hand. Though the said ground was
specifically raised, the Tribunal has not considered the same. In the
impugned order, there is a finding that no argument was advanced by the
appellant and appeal was reserved for order after hearing the respondent
as per Rule - 15. The main ground taken in the appeal is that delay is not
intentional one but due to financial problem and the company became a
sick company, no reason was assigned in the order and no opportunity
was given to the appellant to place his case. The delay in starting the
proceeding caused no prejudice to him.
6. As stated above, the petitioner herein is not a Company and it
is a Society. The petitioner never raised ground of financial problem.
The main ground raised by the petitioner in the appeal is that respondent
KL,J
W.P. No.3110 of 2011
No.2 without giving reasonable opportunity and without serving notice
passed the aforesaid order. The said contention and ground raised by the
petitioner were not considered by the appellate Tribunal in the impugned
order dated 08.12.2010.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
petitioner herein had deposited 50% of the amount determined by
respondent No.2 under Section - 14B of the Act, 1952.
8. In view of the above said discussion, the order passed by
respondent No.1 dated 08.12.2010 in ATA No.486 (1)2005 is not on the
grounds raised by the petitioner and the appellate Tribunal has not
considered the grounds raised by the petitioner in the impugned order.
Therefore, the said order is liable to be set aside.
9. The present Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of setting
aside the impugned order dated 08.12.2010 passed by respondent No.1 in
ATA No.486(1)2005. The matter is remanded back to the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court (Employees
Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal) at Hyderabad, for fresh
consideration.
KL,J
W.P. No.3110 of 2011
10. As stated above, the damages determined for the above said
period and the order under Section - 14B of the Act, 1952 is dated
29.10.2004. The appeal is of the year 2005, and the appellate Tribunal
had passed the impugned order in December, 2010. In view of the same,
the appellate Tribunal shall dispose of the appeal in accordance with law,
as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one month
from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
11. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no
order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the
Writ Petition shall stand closed.
_________________
K. LAKSHMAN, J
20th September, 2022
Mgr
