Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Annapurna Cotton Mills & Industries ... vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner & ... on 7 November, 2016
Author: Subrata Talukdar
Bench: Subrata Talukdar
1
99.
07.11.2016.
Ct. No. 29.
F.B.
W.P. 11879 (W) of 2016
Sri Annapurna Cotton Mills & Industries Ltd.
-Vs.-
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner & Ors.
Mr. Soumya Majumder
..... For the Petitioners.
Ms. Aparna Banerjee
..... For the Respondents.
_________ Sri Soumya Majumder, Learned Counsel appears for the writ petitioner and in this writ petition challenges the order dated 8th of April, 2016 passed by the Learned Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (for short EPFAT) in an appeal filed by the writ petitioner.
By the order impugned dated 8th of April, 2016, the Learned Tribunal, inter alia, held as follows:-
"Keeping in view the fact mentioned in the application that appeal filed by appellant within extended period, hence delay is condoned.
At this stage, application for stay of operation of impugned order also filed on behalf of appellant. Admittedly, there is delay in payment of statutory contribution by appellant 2 and delay is attributed to appellant only. Keeping in view submissions made on behalf of appellant regarding manner of calculation of damages and interest and financial position of appellant establishment, respondent is restrained from recovery of more than 50% of the assessed amount till further orders.
Now come upon 01.08.2016 for filing counter reply and further proceedings".
Sri Majumder argues that the EPFAT has made binding observations on the aspect of the alleged delay in payment of statutory contribution by the petitioner/appellant and, in the light of such observations the recovery of 50% of the assessed amount tantamounts to an uncalled for imposition. Sri Majumder points out that the order impugned dated 8th of April, 2016 almost reflects the final view of the EPFAT in the appeal.
On behalf of the respondents-Provident Fund Authority (for short PFA), Ms. Aparna Banerjee, Learned Counsel appears and rightly points out that the restraint on recovery of more than 50% of the assessed amount by the EPFAT has been issued till further orders in the appeal.
Having heard the parties and considering the materials placed, this Court is of the view that the present writ petition need not be detained any further since the appeal itself is pending pursuant to the direction of an Hon'ble Single Bench dated 23rd of February, 2016 in W.P. 30576 (W) of 2015.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with the observation that the recovery directed by EPFAT vide its order dated 8th of April, 2016 shall be obviously subject to the final adjudication 3 of the pending appeal without prejudice to all the points which the parties shall be entitled to take in the hearing of the appeal.
Affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be kept with the record.
Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities.
(Subrata Talukdar, J.)