Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Order vs Management Of Rsl Textiles India ... on 26 September, 2019
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU
WRIT PETITION No. 14380 of 2019
ORDER:-
Heard Sri Koka Satyanarayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri P. Rama Bhoopal Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing for the 1st respondent.
2. The counsel for the petitioner argues that a statutory appeal has been filed under the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. It is his contention that the original order was passed mechanically without considering the element of mens rea, which is a necessary ingredient. He relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, EPFO and another Vs. Management of RSL Textiles India Private Limited through its Director1 and argues that the original order, dated 10.07.2019, does not contain any discussion regarding the "mens rea". He says that questioning the said order, they have filed a statutory appeal, and in the appeal, they have specifically raised a ground by quoting this case law and other cases that a specific finding regarding mens rea is not there and, therefore, the appeal should be allowed. He also submits that along with the appeal, they have filed applications for stay of all further proceedings and for condonation of waiver of prerequisite deposit. The waiver was granted, but the stay application was dismissed. Questioning the same, the present writ petition has been filed and an application for stay of all further proceedings is also moved. 1 2017 (3) SCC 110 2
3. Learned standing counsel for the 1st respondent, on the other hand, submits that there is an exercise of mind and proper discretion by the 1st respondent. He points out that when waiver was granted, the appellate authority, who passed the impugned order, did not find a prima facie case to suspend the order, dated 10.07.2019. He also points out that the order is a reasoned order and that this is not the stage to stay all further proceedings, as it is a statutory appeal, and that there is a deliberate intention to avoid the payment of dues.
4. This Court, after hearing both the learned counsel, notices that the crux of the petitioner's case turns around the issue of mens rea and he relies upon the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court and argues that unless the element of mens rea is present, the order, dated 10.07.2019, cannot be considered. This Court does not wish to enter into this area of controversy, since this is a matter which is preeminently within the jurisdiction of the appellate authority. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that a direction should be given to the appellate authority, 2nd respondent herein, to dispose of the appeal itself. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent is directed to dispose of the E.P.F. Appeal No.39 of 2019, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that in the interregnum period, no coercive steps should be taken against the petitioner.
5. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
3
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this writ petition shall stand closed.
_________________________________ JUSTICE D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU 26th September, 2019 cbs 4 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU Writ Petition No. 14380 of 2019 26th September, 2019 cbs