AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
@GMENTTAG-JUDGMENT
1.The petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.05.2015 under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India passed by Employees’
Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (in short ‘the Tribunal’) in the appeal being ATA No.498(4)2015.
2.While considering the interim relief during the pendency of the appeal challenging the order dated 31.03.2015 issued against it under Section
14B and Section 7Q of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (in short ‘the EPF Act’), the
Tribunal observed that the appeal is against the order under Section 14B and Section 7Q of the EPF Act and the petitioner is supposed to
deposit the assessed amount under Section 7Q of the EPF Act since the order under Section 7Q of the EPF Act is not appealable. The Tribunal
stayed the impugned order dated 31.03.2015 subject to the petitioner/appellant depositing the amount assessed under Section 7-Q of the Act
with the concerned authority within 30 days, failing which the appeal shall be deemed to be dismissed. In fact, the impugned order dated
31.03.2015 is a composite order passed under Section 14B and 7Q of the EPF Act and in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Arcot
Textile Mills Ltd. vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, AIR 2014 SC 295, such order impugned before the Tribunal is appealable. Since
the order impugned before the Tribunal was under Section 14B and 7Q of the EPF Act, the petitioner was not required to pre-deposit any
amount under Section 7-O of the EPF Act as assessed and determined by EPFC.
3.A Division Bench of this court in Jai Balaji Security Services (Regd.) Vs. A.P.F.C. Delhi (North) in LPA No. 880/2015 decided on
16.12.2015 has dealt with the scope of power of the Tribunal to grant interim relief during pendency of the appeal. Para 15 and 19 of the
judgment read as under which read as under: - “15. But that would not mean that if an aggrieved person, who has challenged an order under
Section 7Q and/or Section 14-B of the Act moves an application before the Appellate Tribunal seeking stay of the demand raised, the Appellate
Tribunal would not be empowered to pass a conditional order of stay. Whereas Section 7-I of the Act creates the forum of appeal, Section 7-O
puts an embargo on the entertainment of the appeal by the Appellate Tribunal by requiring 75% of the amount due as determined under Section
7-A to be deposited; with a power vested in the Appellate Tribunal to waive or reduce the amount to be deposited. Thus, whereas an appeal
has to be entertained without insisting on any pre-deposit concerning orders passed under Section 7-Q and Section 14-B of the Act, but the
pendency of the appeal would not prohibit the Competent Authority to effect the recovery unless the Appellate Tribunal passes an interim order
concerning the demand. This would simply mean that the Appellate Tribunal can pass conditional orders.†“19. We reiterate once again.
Section 7-O of the Act would apply only to orders passed under Section 7-A of the Act and condition of pre-deposit of 75% of the amount
assessed would be a condition for entertaining the appeal by the Appellate Tribunal subject to the Tribunal passing an order under the Proviso to
the said Section. The said order is distinct from an order passed by the Appellate Tribunal in an application seeking interim directions where
demands raised under Section 7-Q and Section 14-B of the Act are challenged. Said orders are not passed in exercise of the power under the
Proviso to Section 7-O of the Act.â€
4.It is conveyed from the above said judgment that the Tribunal would be empowered to pass a conditional order of stay during the pendency of
appeal where the demand raised under Section 14-B and 7-Q of the EPF Act has been challenged. Mere pendency of appeal would not prohibit
the EPF Authority to effect recovery unless Tribunal stays the recovery by interim order during subsistence of appeal subject to certain
conditions.
5.On a close scrutiny of the impugned order of the Tribunal, it appears that the Tribunal has directed the petitioner to deposit the amount as
assessed under Section 7-Q of the EPF Act under a wrong impression that the part order under Section 7-Q of the EPF Act is not appealable
whereas it is a composite order under Section 14B and 7Q of the EPF Act and hence appealable in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in
Arcot Textile Mills Limited (supra). Therefore, the impugned order dated 18.05.2015 of the Tribunal is hereby set-aside with the direction that
the Tribunal shall decide the request of the petitioner for interim relief afresh on such terms and conditions as it may deem fit during the
pendency of the appeal.
6.The petition is disposed of accordingly.
7.CM APPL. 10021/2015 is disposed of as infructuous.