Bombay High Court
Bassein Catholic Co-Operative Bank ... vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner - ... on 22 February, 2024
Author: Sandeep V. Marne
Bench: Sandeep V. Marne
2024:BHC-OS:2951
Neeta Sawant 1/4 907-WP(L)-5962-2024.docx
22 February 2024.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (LODG.) NO. 5962 OF 2024
Bassein Catholic Co-operative
Bank Ltd. ...Petitioner
V/s.
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II
and anr. ...Respondents
______________
Mr. S.C. Naidu with Mr. Niraj Prajapati, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Ravi Rattesar, for Respondent No.1.
Mr. P.S. Gujar, for Respondent No.2.
_______________
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
Dated : 22 February 2024.
P.C. :
1) This petition is filed for limited purpose of seeking stay on the
directives dated 15 February 2024 of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (RPFC) issued to the Branch Manager of IDBI Bank for recovery of amount of Rs.2,45,97,987/- which is assessed as dues under ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 20:25:40 ::: Neeta Sawant 2/4 907-WP(L)-5962-2024.docx 22 February 2024.
Section 14B and 7Q of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (the Act).
2) It appears that by two separate orders passed on 29 November 2023 under the provisions of Section 14B and 7Q of the Act, the RPFC has assessed penal damages under Section 14B of the Act, as well as interest under Section 7Q of the Act.
3) There is no dispute to the position that an Appeal under the provisions of Section 7-I of the Act is maintainable in respect of the Order passed under Section 14B of the Act. Though a dispute is sought to be created by the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 about maintainability of an Appeal against a separate order passed under Section 7Q of the Act, it is Mr. Naidu's contention that composite proceedings were initiated by issuance of a common show cause notice for conducting proceedings under Section 14B and 7Q of the Act. Relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Arcot Textile Mills Limited V/s. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and Ors. 1, Mr. Naidu would submit that Appeal under the provisions of Section 7-I of the Act is maintainable where a composite order is passed under Sections 14B and 7Q. This is something which the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) would decide, which is already presented with an Appeal by the Petitioner. The real worry of the Petitioner is that on account of vacancy of the post of the Member, CGIT, Petitioner's Appeal is not being taken up for decision and Petitioner is prevented from applying for interim relief in respect of the 1 (2013) 16 SCC 1 ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 20:25:40 ::: Neeta Sawant 3/4 907-WP(L)-5962-2024.docx 22 February 2024.
Recovery Notice dated 15 February 2024. This is the limited scope of the present petition.
4) The learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 has strenuously urged that no interim relief be granted to the Petitioner without directing deposit of the entire amount of interest assessed under Section 7Q of the Act. He would submit that even in respect of penal damages assessed under Section 14B of the Act, 75% deposit of the amount be directed. On the contrary, Mr. Naidu would submit that the provision for deposit under Section 7O of the Act is applicable only in respect of the amounts determined under Section 7A. That there is no provision for deposit of the amount assessed under Section 14B and 7Q of the Act.
5) I have gone through the Orders dated 29 November 2023. It appears that the Petitioner applied for surrender of exemption under Section 17(4) of the Act on 18 March 2021. The Office of RPFC granted approval for surrender of exemption by letter dated 29 April 2021. However, the surrender of exemption was made effective from 1 April 2021. It is Petitioner's case that the time limit for remittance of liquid cash was to be computed from the date of receipt of letter approving the surrender request, which in the present case is 29 April 2021 whereas the RPFC has erroneously computed the said period from the date of effect of such surrender i.e. 1 April 2021. It is on account of this controversy about the starting point for computation of period to remit liquid cash that the penal damages are apparently assessed against the Petitioner. This is again something which the CGIT would go into. In my view, as of now, the Petitioner has remitted the liquid cash from time to time ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 20:25:40 ::: Neeta Sawant 4/4 907-WP(L)-5962-2024.docx 22 February 2024.
and nothing is due and payable by the Petitioner as liquid cash. Considering these peculiar facts and circumstances, it is not necessary to direct the Petitioner to make any deposit as a pre-condition for entertainment of the Appeal filed under Section 7-I of the Act. In my view, till the Tribunal takes up the Application for interim relief filed by the Petitioner for decision, the impugned order of recovery dated 15 February 2024 deserves to be stayed. I accordingly proceed to pass the following order :
(i) Till the CGIT, Mumbai takes up Petitioner's Application for interim relief against the Orders dated 29 November 2023 for decision and decides the same, the impugned Recovery Notice dated 15 February 2024 shall remain stayed. As a consequence of stay of the Recovery Notice, Respondent No.1 shall issue necessary instructions to the Bank to lift the order of attachment.
(ii) All points on merits in respect of the Orders dated 29 November 2023 are kept open and the Tribunal shall proceed to decide Petitioner's Appeal and interim application uninfluenced by any of the observations made in the present order.
6) With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 20:25:40 :::