Allahabad High Court
M/S Parle Biscuits Pvt. Ltd. (Sugar ... vs Appellate Authority,E.P.F. Appellate ... on 26 September, 2023
Author: Jaspreet Singh
Bench: Jaspreet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:62207 Court No. - 19 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 8201 of 2023 Petitioner :- M/S Parle Biscuits Pvt. Ltd. (Sugar Division) Bahraich Thru. Factory Manager, Mr. Anil Kumar Yadav Respondent :- Appellate Authority,E.P.F. Appellate Tribunal/Presiding Officer,Industrial Tribunal,Lko. And Anr. Counsel for Petitioner :- Noor Alam Khan,Kirti Kar Tripathi,Shrikant Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- Akhilesh Pratap Singh Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Notice has been accepted by Shri Krishan Kumar Pandey, who has filed his Vakalatnama which is taken on record.
3. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner assails the order dated 25.08.2023 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / EPF Appellate Tribunal Lucknow in Appeal No.46 of 2023 wherein while granting an interim order, the appellate authority has directed the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.12,04,457/- within a period of six weeks.
4. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that under the Employee Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, there is no provision for imposing interest amount determined under Section 7-Q. It is also stated that the petitioner had disputed its liability and despite the same, the orders have been passed against the petitioner dated 31.07.2023 whereby in terms of proceedings under Sections 14-B a total sum of Rs.23,54,520/- was found payable by the petitioner. However by a subsequent order passed under Section 7-Q, the petitioner has been required to deposit a sum of Rs.12,04,457/-. It is in the aforesaid backdrop the petitioner submits that the amount which has been directed to be deposited is almost the entire liability and in such circumstances, it is not just and appropriate for appellate authority, to have imposed an onerous condition, consequently, the order is bad.
5. Shri Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that there are two separate orders; one passed under Section 14-B and the other under Section 7-Q. In both the aforesaid orders, different liabilities have been determined and imposed against the petitioner.
6. Since the petitioner has preferred an appeal which is engaging the attention of the appellate authority, it is in view of the matter that the appellate authority has passed an interim order dated 25.08.2023 requiring the appellants to deposit a sum of Rs.12,04,457/- and subject to such deposit both the orders under Sections 14-B and 7Q have been stayed. The matter has been listed for hearing on 06.12.2023 and in the aforesaid circumstances since the order is purely interlocutory in nature there is no error which may persuade this Court to interfere in the matter.
7. The Court has considered the rival submissions and also perused the material on record. It is apparently not disputed that an appeal has been preferred by the petitioner bearing No.46 of 2023 which is pending before the appellate authority. The appellate authority while considering the two orders upon which stay has been granted subject to deposit of a sum of Rs.12,04,457/- is within the discretion of the Court to put the party to term while granting an interim order. This can be seen from another angle as well. Since there are two separate orders, one under Section 14-B wherein the liability against the petitioner has been determined as Twenty-three lacs Fifty-four thousand Five hundred and Twenty whereas in proceedings under Section 7-Q an amount of Twelve Lacs Four thousand Four hundred Fifty-seven has been determined and both these orders are under challenge, it in this context, the appellate tribunal taking a holistic view has almost directed the appellant to deposit half of the amount and in lieu thereof the impugned orders dated 21.07.2023 as well as 31.07.2023 have been stayed. It is also well settled that insofar as these government dues are concerned, the appellate authority has discretion to put the party to terms at the time of grant of any interim order.
8. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find that there is any apparent error on the face of the record to persuade this Court to interfere in the matter specially when the order is absolutely interlocutory in nature does not affect the rights of the parties on merit and appeal is yet to be heard on merit, hence in the aforesaid circumstances, the Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter, the petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.9.2023 KR