Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ryder Trans International Pvt. Ltd. vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner ... on 27 September, 2024
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
Bench: Subodh Abhyankar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:28449
1
WP No.11917-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
WRIT PETITION No. 11917 of 2024
RYDER TRANS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.
Versus
REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER II AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms. Kirti Patwardhan - Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Darshana Baghel - Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Reserved on : 30.07.2024
Pronounced on : 27.09.2024
...........................................................................................................
This petition having been heard and reserved for orders, coming on
for pronouncement this day, the court passed the following:
ORDER
1] Heard finally, with the consent of the parties. 2] This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 05.09.2023, passed by the respondent No.1 Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, whereby a demand under Section 7Q of the Employees Provident Fund Signature Not Verified Signed by: PANKAJ PANDEY Signing time: 27-09-2024 17:19:40 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:28449 2 WP No.11917-2024 and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (in short „the Act of 1952‟)has been raised against the petitioner to the tune of Rs.11,33,535/-. 3] The case of the petitioner is that an order under Section 14B of the Act of 1952 has already been passed against the petitioner, which has been assailed by the petitioner in an appeal before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (C.G.I.T.). The aforesaid order is already under challenge before the C.G.I.T. in which, on 05.01.2024, an order of stay has also been passed by the C.G.I.T., subject to the condition of deposit of 40% of the amount to the respondents within 30 days‟ time. However, a demand under Section 7Q of the Act of 1952 has also been raised by the respondents prior to the passing of the aforesaid order by C.G.I.T. on 05.01.2024. It is submitted that since there is no remedy of appeal available to the petitioner in respect of an order passed under Section 7Q of the Act of 1952, hence, the present petition has been has been filed.
4] Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on 15.05.2024 this Court has already stayed the impugned order, subject to the condition of deposit of 40% of the amount as mentioned therein and thus, it is submitted that the petition may be disposed of as the appeal under Section 14-B of the Act of 1952 is still pending before the C.G.I.T. 5] The prayer is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2, and it is submitted that no case for interference is made out, and in fact the petition has been filed only with a view to Signature Not Verified Signed by: PANKAJ PANDEY Signing time: 27-09-2024 17:19:40 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:28449 3 WP No.11917-2024 frustrate the object of the Act of 1952. It is submitted that the damages and interest are two different aspects, exercised under two different quasi-judicial proceedings, and while calculating the interest under Section 7Q of the Act of 1952, the calculation of interest cannot be altered, annulled or waived under any circumstances and it is strictly calculated on the period from the date of which the amount became due till the actual date of payment. It is submitted that the petition is not maintainable as there is no contravention of any provisions of the Act of 1952 and the Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot sit as an Appellate Court considering the disputed question of facts.
6] Counsel has also relied upon various judgements in support of his submissions in the cases of Cable Corporation of India &Anr Vs. Union of India &Anr. reported as 2007 I LLJ 300; Yuvraj Agrawal V/s RPFC reported as 2007 (115) FLR -777(Cal); M/s Sri Ganpathi Mills "B" Unit Virudhunagar,rep.by its M.D. Mr. V.Vee. Rajenthiranv. RPFC Chokkikulam Madurai-2 and 3 others in W.P. (MD) No. 2905 of2007 decided on 25th Nov. 2008;Pentagon Laboratories Ltd. v/s Assistant P F Commissioner in WP No. 1015/2017 dated 01.12.2017; M/s Indira Exports Pvt. Ltd., V/s. Assistant P.F. Commissioner passed in W.P. No.387/2017 dated 24.08.2018; Rahul Steel Forging Ltd. V/s. EPFO passed in W.P. No.6522/2016 dated 04.09.2017; and Horticulture Experiment Signature Not Verified Signed by: PANKAJ PANDEY Signing time: 27-09-2024 17:19:40 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:28449 4 WP No.11917-2024 Station, Gonikoppal, Coorg Vs. The Regional Provident Fund Organization passed in Civil Appeal No.2136 of 2012 dated 23.02.2022. Thus, it is submitted that the petition is liable to be dismissed.
7] Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8] From the record, it is apparent that the petitioner‟s appeal preferred against the order passed under Section 14B of the Act of 1952 has already been filed in which a stay order has also been granted to the petitioner on 05.01.2024, directing that subject to deposit of 40% of the amount, the recovery shall remain stayed. Thus, it is apparent that the order of damages under Section 14B of the Act of 1952 has already been stayed, and in such circumstances, at this juncture, it cannot be contended by the respondents with certainty that the amount of damages as imposed on the petitioner would be the final amount due on which the interest can be charged as prescribed under Section 7Q of the Act of 1952, which reads as under:-
"[7Q. Interest payable by the employer.--The employer shall be liable to pay simple interest at the rate of twelve per cent. per annum or at such higher rate as may be specified in the Scheme on any amount due from him under this Act from the date on which the amount has become so due till the date of its actual payment:
Provided that higher rate of interest specified in the Scheme shall not exceed the lending rate of interest charged by any scheduled bank.]"
(Emphasis Supplied) 9] So far as the decisions relied upon by the counsel for the respondents are concerned, the same are distinguishable on facts and does not deal with the situation where the appeal filed by the employer Signature Not Verified Signed by: PANKAJ PANDEY Signing time: 27-09-2024 17:19:40 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:28449 5 WP No.11917-2024 against the order passed under Section 14B of the Act of 1972 is pending and stay is also granted in the appeal, and since this Court has already directed the petitioner to deposit the 40% of the amount, this Court finds it expedient to dispose of this petition with further observations that the interim order dated 15.05.2024 is hereby made absolute, and the parties shall be governed by the order passed by the C.G.I.T. in the appeal preferred against the order passed under Section 14B of the Act of 1952, on the basis of which further proceedings u/s.7Q shall commence.
10] With the aforesaid direction, petition stands disposed of.
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR) JUDGE Pankaj Signature Not Verified Signed by: PANKAJ PANDEY Signing time: 27-09-2024 17:19:40