Kanak Manjari Womens College, Salapada, Keonjhar vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional Office, Keonjhar

This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).

This Writ Appeal has been filed by the Appellant Kanak Manjari Womens College, Salapada, Keonjhar challenging the order dated 16.05.2024 passedd by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.12156 of 2024 under Annexure-10.

The Writ Petition was filed, inter alia, chaallenging the order dateed 18.04.2024 passed by the learned Presiding Officcer, C.G.I.T. -cum- Labour Court, Bhubaneswar inn A.T.A. Case No.09 of 2024. In the aforesaid order,, the learned Presiding Officer admitted the Appeal subject to payment of 25% of the amount i.e. Rs. 1,00,17,289/-, within thirty days from the date of passing of the order and it was directedd to the Respondent i.e. R.P.F.C., Regional Office, Keonjjhar not to take any coercive action against the Appellannt till the next date.

The learneed Single Judge, taking into account the provision 7(3) of the Tribunal (Procedure) Rulees, 1997 (for short, “1997 Rules”) has held that the Rule provides that no Appeal filed by the Employer shall be entertained by a Tribunal unless 75% of the amount is deposited with the Tribunal. Proviso to Rule 7(33) of the 1997 Rules indicates that the Tribunal may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, waive or reduce the a mount to be deposited under section 7-Q of the Emmployees' Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short, “1952 Act”). It has been further held that the Tribunal, takingg into account the provisions contained under the proviiso to Rule 7(3) of the 1997 Ruules, has reduced the ammount to be deposited to the extent of 25% of the demmand amount and therefore, theere is no illegality or irreegularity in the impugned ordeer dated 18.04.2024 passsed by the learned Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T. -cum- Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in A.T.A Case No.09 of 2024.

In view of the above, it would be apt too extract below Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules for ready referennce:

“7. Fee, time for filing appeal, depposit of amount due onn filing appeal.—

(1) Every appeal filed with the Registrar shall be accompanied by a fee of two thoussand rupees to be remitted in the form of crossed demand drraft on a nationalized bank in favour of the Registrar of the Tribunal and payable at the main branch of that Bank at the staation where the seat of the said Tribunal is situated.

(2) Any person aggrieved by a notificaation issued by the Central Government or an order passed byy the Central Government or any other authhority under the Act, may withinn 60 days from the date of issue of the notificationn/order, prefer an appeal to the Tribunal: Provided that the Tribunal may if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the apppeal within the prescribed period, extend the said period by a further period of 60 days:

(3) Providded further that no appeal by the employer shall be entertained by the Tribunal unless he has [deposited with the Tribunnal a Demand Draft payable in the Fund and bearing] 75 per cent of the amount due from him as determined under Section 7-A:

Provided also that the Tribunal may for reasons to be recorded in writing, waive or reduce the amount to be deposited under secction 7-O.”

(Emphasis supplied)

It is submiitted that rule 7(3) of 1997 Rulees is pari materia with section 7-O of the Employees' Provident Fund & Miscellaaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (foor short, “1952 Act”) annd taking into account this provision, Hon’ble Supremme Court in the case of Shiv Harbal Research Laaboratory -Vrs.- Assistant P.F.Commissioner reported in MANU/SC/1324/2010 has been pleaseed to hold as follows:

“2. Havinng heard learned counsel for the respectivee parties, we are unable to acccept the submmissions made on behalf of the Respondeent, having regard to the fact that had it been the intention of the legislaturre to also incluude the principles incorporated in section 7-O of the above Act, the same would have been indicated in the provisionn relating to filing of appeals against such orders. section 7-O maakes specific reference to orders passedd in terms off section 7A where it has been laid down that no appeal by the employer shall be entertained unlesss he has deposited 75% of the amount due from himm as determined by an officer referred to in section 7-A. The proviso to section 7-O, however, grants the Tribunal discretion for reasons to be recordedd in writing, to waive or redduce the amoount to be deposited under the said section. There is no such provision as far as section 14-B is concerned.

Apart from the above, the provisionn for preferringg an appeal in respect of an order under secction 14-B is contained in sectionn 7-I of the abbove Act which provides for apppeals to the Tribunal, inter alia against orrders passed unnder section 14-B. Sub-section (22) of section 7-I indicates that every appeal under sub-sectioon (1) shall be filed in such form and manner, within such time and be accompannied by such fees, as may be prescribed. There is nothing to indiccate that anyy part of the amount awarrded under seection 14-B was required too be deposited at the time of filing of the appeal.

Whenn specific provision has been made with regard to appeals unnder section 7-A and under section 7-O, a definite provision has been indicated for deposit of 75% of the awarded amoount and therre is no such provision in section 7-I , wee cannot read the principless of section 7-O into the provisions of section 7-I in reelation to appeals under section 14-B of the above Act.”

(Emphasis supplied)

Learned counsel for the Appellant submittted that the Appellant has already deposited the amount which has been determined in the 7-A proceeding annd if the Appellant wouldd not have deposited the amount, as determined in the 7-A proceeding and wouuld have preferred an Appeal, then the question of deepositing 75% of the amoount or reducing the amount would have arisen. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Presiding Officcer, C.G.I.T. -cum- Labour Court, Bhubaneswar daated 18.04.2024 so also the order dated 16.05.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in confirming such order are illegal.

Heard.

Admit.

Mr. Arabinda Mohanty, learned counsel has entered appearaance on behalf of the Respondent.

A copy of the Writ Appeal along withh all its annexures and Interim Application has already been served upon himm.

Put up thiis matter in the week commencing from 24.06.2024.

I.A. No.3661 of 2024

This is an application for stay of further proceeding in A.T.A. Casee No.09 of 2024 pending before the learned Presidinng Officer, C.G.I.T. -cum- Labouur Court, Bhubaneswar till disposal of the Writ Appeal.

After hearring learned counsel for the reespective parties and going through the averments takeen in the Writ Appeal and Interim Application as well as documents annnexed thereto, further proceeeding in A.T.A. Case No.09 of 2024 pending before the learned Presiding Officcer, C.G.I.T. -cum- Labour Court, Bhubaneswar is stayed till disposal of the Writ Appeal.

Accordinglyy, the I.A. stands disposed of.

Issue urgent certified copy of the orderr as per Rules.

……………………………