Rdb Textiles Ltd vs Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner ... on 3 October, 2016

[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Rdb Textiles Ltd vs Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner ... on 3 October, 2016

Bench: Subrata Talukdar

03.10.2016
    48
b.r

                          W.P. No.24162(W) of 2016

                            RDB Textiles Ltd.
                                 -vs-
             Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Damage),
                    Sub-Regional Office, Howrah & Anr.


                  Mr. Soumya Mazumdar
                  Mr. Supratim Laha,
                  Mr. Pranav Sharma
                                 ....... For the petitioner.


                  Mrs. Aparna Banerjee,
                                .......for the P.F. Authority.



                        Sri Soumya Mazumdar, learned Senior Counsel, appears

                  for the writ petitioner/Company and submits that against the

                  order of the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Damage

                  Cell), Howrah, West Bengal dated 6th June, 2016, the

                  petitioner/Company has preferred an appeal within the period

                  of limitation before the learned Employees Provident Fund

                  Appellate Tribunal (for short EPFAT).



                        Sri Mazumdar points out that the learned EPFAT has

                  now shifted to a new address in New Delhi and, from the

                  Docket number in the Registers of the learned EPFAT, the
 appeal filed by the petitioner/Company as above stand

recorded.

        Above all, in this writ petition, Sri Mazumdar challenges

the communication dated 20th September, 2016 issued by the

Assistant P.F. Commissioner (Damage Cell), Howrah whereby

the petitioner was requested to intimate the latest development

in the appeal to the Assistant P.F. Commissioner (Damage

Cell), Howrah within a period of seven days failing which the

outstanding P.F. dues were directed to be remitted to the

Fund.



        Appearing on behalf of the respondents/P.F. Authority,

Smt. Aparna Banerjee, learned Counsel, submits that the P.F. dues connect to a long period from April, 1996 to December, 2013.

Smt. Banerjee further submits that the payment of interest under Section 7Q of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short 1952 Act) is not an appealable order.

Sri Mazumdar replies to the above noted point on interest raised by Smt. Banerjee by arguing that the order under appeal is a composite order.

Having heard the parties and considering the materials placed, this Court grants a further period of two months from date to the petitioner to take steps in the appeal before the learned EPFAT and, on the expiry of the said period to communication dated 20th September, 2016 of the Assistant P.F. Commissioner (Damage), Howrah at Page-25 of the writ petition shall be entitled to take effect.

WP No. 24162(W) of 2016 stands accordingly disposed of.

Affidavit-of-Service filed in Court today be kept with the record. Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities.

(Subrata Talukdar, J)

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)