Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Nav Bharat Press Bhopal Private ... vs Employee Provident Fund Organization on 13 June, 2022
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Ravi Malimath, Vishal Mishra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 13th OF JUNE, 2022
WRIT APPEAL No. 289 of 2022
Between:-
M/S NAV BHARAT PRESS (BHOPAL) PRIVATE
LIMITED THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER
SHRI ASHISH SHROTI S/O SHRI ANIL SHROTI
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS OCCUPATION GENERAL
MANAGER OFFICE ADDRESS: 3 INDIRA PRESS
COMPLEX M.P. NAGAR ZONE-I BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI PRANAY CHOUBEY - ADVOCATE )
AND
EMPLOYEE PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION
THROUGH THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND
COMMISSIONER BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAWAN
59 ARERA HILLS BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI J.K PILLAI - ADVOCATE )
This appeal coming on for admission this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice
Vishal Mishra, passed the following:
ORDER
Challenge being made by the order dated 02/02/2022 passed by the writ Court in W.P No.24916/2021, whereby, the writ Court has dismissed the writ petition without considering the material facts of the case and without even Signature Not Verified SAN looking into the arguments and the documents annexed with the writ petition. Therefore, the appeal has been filed.
Digitally signed by PRARTHANA SURYAVANSHI Date: 2022.06.20 14:18:03 IST 2It is submitted that the appellant is engaged in printing and publishing of Hindi Daily News Paper. Since the year 2002 had been decline in circulation of appellant's news paper due to various reasons. On account of said reasons, the appellant had taken a loan of Rs.12 Crores from Bank of Maharashtra in the year 2004. In the year 2006, the said loan account was declared as NPA and the proceedings for recovery were initiated which are pending consideration before Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur. During the period from October 2005 to February 2013, there was some delay in payment of provident fund dues on account of the fact that the appellant suffered heavy losses during the period from 2005 to 2013. The institution was virtually on the closure and he was unable to pay the salaries of the employees. A show-cause notice was issued to the appellant by the respondent Department on 12/03/2014 under Section 14-B of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short 'the EPF Act') without providing opportunities to the appellant. The assessment under Section 14-B of the EPF Act was done by the Department and an order dated 18/05/2017 was passed whereby the appellant was directed to pay an amount of Rs.69,32,954/- towards damages under Section 14-B of the EPF Act. A separate order under Section 7-Q of the EPF Act levying interest to the tune of Rs.37,99,618 was passed. The order dated 18/05/2017 was assailed before the Employees Provident Fund Appellant Tribunal, New Delhi and the case was transferred to EPFAT, Jabalpur and was registered as EPFA No.4/17.
The reply was filed by the respondent. The Tribunal has disposed off the Signature Not Verified SAN appeal on 08/03/2021 quashing the order dated 18/05/2017 with a direction to Digitally signed by PRARTHANA the respondent to rehear the appellant and pass a fresh order after recording of SURYAVANSHI Date: 2022.06.20 14:18:03 IST finding on the explanation or reasons for delay in depositing to EPF dues. In 3 pursuance to the same, rehearing of the case was done without correctly appreciating an explanation offered by the appellant which was duly supported by documents and again an order was passed on 16/08/2021 directing the appellant to pay the damages to the tune of Rs. 69,32,954/-. It is pointed out that the Hon'ble Tribunal has granted interim relief vide order dated 22/03/2018 without imposition of any condition regarding deposition of amount but later on, on the oral request of the counsel for the respondent has imposed the condition of deposition of 40% of damages for grant of stay vide order dated 26/02/2019. The aforesaid was challenged by the appellant in writ petition No.6397/2019, the same was allowed on 02/04/2019.
The appeal was preferred before the Tribunal under Section 7-I of the EPF & MP Act, 2021 against the order dated 16/08/2021. The appeal was admitted by the Tribunal vide order dated 29/10/2021, directing the appellant to deposit 35% of amount quantified by the respondent towards damages as a precondition for grant of interim relief within 15 days. Being aggrieved by imposition of condition of depositing of 35% for grant of interim relief, the writ petition was preferred before this Court wherein the order impugned was passed by the writ Court observing that Tribunal is having discretion to impose a condition while considering the matter for grant of interim relief, therefore, no illegality was found and the petition was dismissed.
Counsel appearing for the appellant has pointed out that there is no such provision for imposing a condition for deposition of an amount, it is a discretion of the Tribunal to impose such a condition. The Tribunal while Signature Not Verified SAN imposing a condition for deposition of 35% of amount has not taken into Digitally signed by PRARTHANA SURYAVANSHI consideration the arguments which have been advanced by the appellant as well Date: 2022.06.20 14:18:03 IST 4 as documents which have been filed to demonstrate that the appellant has suffered huge losses owing to which the Institution was in a pathetic condition and was not even able to pay salaries of their employees. For their survival, they have to fetch a loan of Rs.12 Cores from the Bank and subsequently, the Bank has declared the account to be NPA and the recovery proceedings were initialed which are pending consideration. It is argued that looking to the poor financial condition of the appellant, he is not in a position to deposit 35% of amount as directed by the Tribunal upheld by the writ Court, but he can certainly deposit an amount of Rs.10 Lakhs before the Tribunal for consideration of his case for grant of interim relief. The Tribunal has a discretion to relax the pre-deposit looking to the facts and circumstances of each case, therefore the arguments should have been considered by the Tribunal.
Per contra, counsel appearing for the respondent has supported the impugned order and has argued that the discretion has rightly been exercised by the Tribunal. In terms of the Rule 21 of Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997, the Tribunal is having powers to pass appropriate orders to secure the ends of justice, but the fact remains that the question for consideration regarding grant of interim relief on a pre-deposit condition is between the Tribunal as well as the appellant and the employer is having no role to play. It is totally a discretion of the Tribunal to relax the pre- deposit looking to the facts and circumstances of the case.
In the present case, the appellant since from the very beginning are contesting the matter pointing out the poor financial condition of the Institution Signature Not Verified SAN as well as the fact that the recovery proceedings towards loan taken by the Digitally signed by PRARTHANA SURYAVANSHI appellant are already pending consideration before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Date: 2022.06.20 14:18:03 IST 5 Jabalpur and they are facing great hardship as well as financial matter are concerned. Imposition of a penalty in lieu of the delay being caused in deposition of the provident fund is a matter which is still to be adjudicated by the Tribunal as reasonable explanation is being submitted by the appellant. If the pre-condition of depositing 35% of the assessed amount is not relaxed then the filling of appeal before Tribunal will be futile and will amount to injustice to the appellant. As there are ample powers to the Tribunal to relax the condition of pre-deposition and to secure the ends of justice in terms of Rule-21 of Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997 that the Tribunal can pass appropriate orders.
In such circumstances, the learned Tribunal should have considered the aforesaid aspect of relaxing the condition of pre-deposition. The writ Court has also not taken into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter and has affirmed the order passed by the Tribunal. As the appellant has himself submitted that he is ready to deposit an amount of Rs.10 Lakhs as a pre- deposit for grant of interim-relief in the matter within a period of 15 days, this Court deems it appropriate to modify the order passed by the Tribunal as well as the writ Court to the extent of deposition of Rs.10 Lakhs by the appellant within a period of 15 days from today. The condition of deposition of 35% amount is modified to the aforesaid extent.
With the aforesaid observations, the appeal stands allowed and disposed off.
Signature Not Verified SAN(RAVI MALIMATH) (VISHAL MISHRA) Digitally signed by PRARTHANA SURYAVANSHI CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE Date: 2022.06.20 14:18:03 IST Prar 6 Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by PRARTHANA SURYAVANSHI Date: 2022.06.20 14:18:03 IST