Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
M/S. Concast Ispat Ltd. & Another vs The Employees' Provident Fund ... on 14 June, 2017
1
20 14.06.201 W.P. 4950 (W) of 2017
BD
7.
M/s. Concast Ispat Ltd. & Another
Vs
The Employees' Provident Fund Organisation
& Others
Mr. Anjan Bhattacharya.
... For Petitioners
Mr. Gautam Kr. Ray.
... For Respondent Nos 1 & 2
Let the affidavit of service filed in Court today be kept with the record.
The petitioners have challenged an order dated December 19, 2016 passed under Section 14B of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 as well as the order dated December 18, 2016 under Section 7Q of the said Act. So far as the order passed under Section 14B of the said Act is concerned, it is an appealable order. The petitioners have not filed any appeal and I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition without the petitioners' first exhausting the statutory remedy. The writ petition in so far as it seeks to challenge the order passed under Section 14B of the said Act is not entertained.
So far as the order under Section 7Q of the said Act is concerned, the writ petition is entertained. Let an affidavit in opposition in respect of the order passed under Section 7Q of the Act be filed within four weeks from date. Let the affidavit in reply thereto, if 2 any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.
Let the matter appear for hearing in the Combined Monthly List of August 2017 within the first 50 matters under that heading.
After hearing the learned advocates for the parties, I am of the opinion that the petitioners have been able to make out a prima facie case for the grant of an interim order. The balance of convenience and inconvenience also lies in favour of passing an interim order inasmuch as refusal to pass an interim order shall affect the petitioner more than the grant of it is likely to prejudice the respondents. However, since the demand raised by the provident fund authorities is in the nature of a money claim, the petitioners will have to secure the said amount.
Thus, there shall be an unconditional stay of operation of the order dated December 18, 2016 passed under Section 7Q of the Act for a period of two weeks. If during the period of two weeks the petitioners deposit Rs. 40 lakhs with the learned Registrar General, High Court, Calcutta the unconditional stay shall continue till the disposal of the writ petition.
In case any such deposit is made, the learned Registrar General is directed to invest the same in a short term fixed deposit scheme with any nationalised bank and to renew it from time to time until further order.
(Dr. Sambuddha Chakrabarti, J.) 3