Delhi High Court
M/S Times Press Pvt. Ltd. (Defunc) vs The Employees Provident Funds ... on 19 September, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 DEL 1805
Author: C.Hari Shankar
Bench: C.Hari Shankar
$~77
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 19th September, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 4885/2016 & CM APPL. 20395/2016
M/S TIMES PRESS PVT. LTD. (DEFUNC) ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.P.Arora, Adv. with
Mr.Rajiv Arora, Advs.
versus
THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUNDS APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Keshav Mohan and
Mr.Piyush Choudhary, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
% JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. Against an order passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as "the APFC"), the petitioner appealed to the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the EPFAT").
2. Vide order dated 12th December, 2012, the EPFAT, exercising powers under the proviso of Section 7-O of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), directed pre-deposit, by the petitioner, of 50% of the amount confirmed against it by the APFC.
W.P.(C) 4885/2016 Page 1 of 53. Without either deposing the said amount or challenging the said order, the petitioner moved an application, seeking "review" of the said order, before the EPFAT itself, purportedly under Section 7-L (2) of the Act.
4. Section 7-L (1) and (2) as well as Section 7-O of the Act merit reproduction as under:-
"7L. Orders of Tribunal.- (1) A Tribunal may, after giving the parties to the appeal, an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit, confirming, modifying or annulling the order appealed against or may refer the case back to the authority which passed such order with such directions as the tribunal may think fit, for a fresh adjudication or order, as the case may be, after taking additional evidence, if necessary.
(2) A Tribunal may, at any time within five years from the date of its order, with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record, amend any order passed by it under sub-section 1 and shall make such amendment in the order if the mistake is brought to its notice by the parties to the appeal: Provided that an amendment which has the effect of enhancing the amount due from, or otherwise increasing the liability of, the employer shall not be made under this sub-
section, unless the Tribunal has given notice to him of its intention to do so and has allowed him a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
7-O. Deposit of amount due, on filing appeal. - No appeal by the employer shall be entertained by a Tribunal unless he has deposited with it seventy-five per cent of the amount due from him as determined by an officer referred to in section 7A:
Provided that the Tribunal may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, waive or reduce the amount to be deposited under this section."W.P.(C) 4885/2016 Page 2 of 5
5. It is obvious that the "review" application was thoroughly misconceived, as the order of pre-deposit was not passed under Section 7-L(1) but under Section 7-O of the Act and was not, therefore, appealable under Section 7-L(2).
6. Be that as it may, vide order dated 15th September, 2015, the EPFAT dismissed the said application of the petitioner and also dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with the direction of pre- deposit.
7. Against this order, the petitioner filed yet another review petition, before the EPFAT, which was also dismissed on 3 rd February, 2016.
8. This writ petition impugns the above mentioned orders, dated 15th September, 2015 and 3rd February, 2016.
9. It is clear that, in the process, the petitioner has avoided making pre-deposit, in compliance with the order dated 12th December, 2012 (supra) till date.
10. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he would be satisfied if his client is granted four weeks' further time, to comply with the direction of pre-deposit, as contained in the order dated 12th December, 2012, of the EPFAT, i.e. to deposit 50% of the amount confirmed against it by the APFC.
11. Mr. Keshav Mohan, appearing for the respondents, very fairly does not oppose this request, and leaves it to the Court.
W.P.(C) 4885/2016 Page 3 of 512. As a matter of indulgence, and keeping the interests of justice in mind, and also so as not to deprive the petitioner of the opportunity of appeal statutorily conferred on it, I deem it appropriate to accept the offer made by learned counsel for the petitioner.
13. Be it noted, that the appellate jurisdiction which earlier vested in the EPFAT, is now being exercised by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the CGIT"), since June, 2017.
14. Accordingly, subject to the petitioner depositing 50% of the amount, confirmed against it by the APFC, as directed in the order dated 12th December, 2012, of the EPFAT, within four weeks from today, and furnishing proof of such deposit, before the CGIT, on 16th November, 2018, the orders dated 15th September, 215 (supra) and 3rd February, 2016 (supra) of the EPFAT, would stand set aside.
15. Subject to making of the said compliance, the appeal of the petitioner, before the EPFAT, would stand restored and would now be taken up for hearing by the CGIT, for which purpose the parties may appear before the CGIT on 16th November, 2018.
16. Subject to the CGIT being satisfied regarding compliance with this order, it may take up the appeal for hearing and disposal.
17. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter is urgent, pleadings are complete and requests that the CGIT may be directed to dispose of the appeal at an early date.
W.P.(C) 4885/2016 Page 4 of 518. It shall be open to the petitioner to make such a request before the CGIT, which, this Court has no doubt the CGIT would consider with the earnestness it deserves.
19. It is made clear that the time of four weeks now being granted for compliance with the order dated 12th December, 2012, of the EPFAT, directing deposit of 50% amount, shall not be extended under any circumstances.
20. It is further made clear that this order does not express any opinion on the issues, of facts or law, which arise for consideration in appeal, and which are kept open, for consideration by the CGIT.
21. The writ petition is disposed of, accordingly, with no order as to costs.
C.HARI SHANKAR, J SEPTEMBER 19, 2018 dsn W.P.(C) 4885/2016 Page 5 of 5