Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. The question as to whether interest is liable to be paid would be on the merits of the dispute. This Court put a query to counsels as to why the Petitioner ought not to be allowed to challenge the impugned demand under Section 7Q, before the Tribunal itself where the challenge to the Section 14B demand is pending, in view of Arcot Textiles Mills Ltd. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 16 SCC 1.

11. Mr. Mahanta submits that Arcot Textiles (supra) is clear to the extent that if the orders are passed separately and are not composite in nature, no appeal is maintainable against the demand of interest under Section 7Q. Thus, he submits that in view of Arcot Textiles Mills (supra), the Tribunal has refused to grant a stay in respect of Section 7Q and has only entertained the appeal in respect of Section 14B. Mr. Mahanta, ld. counsel, further submits that the judgment of the ld. Division Bench of this Court in M/s Net 4 India Limited vs. Union of India & Anr. [W.P.(C) 6673/2016, decided on 2nd August, 2016] clearly holds that an appeal would not be maintainable if an independent order is passed under Section 7Q. The judgement in M/s Net 4 India (supra) has been challenged and the same is pending adjudication before the Supreme Court. Ld. counsel also places reliance on the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Roma Henny Securities Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Central Board of Trustees, E.P.F. Organization through Assistant P.F. Commissioner, Delhi (North) [W.P.(C) 831/2012, decided on 12th September, 2012], which has been remanded back for adjudication by the Supreme Court vide order dated 27th February, 2019 in Civil Appeal No. 6592/2014 titled Central Board of Trustees v. Roma Henny Securities Digitally Signed By:DINESH SINGH NAYAL Signing Date:31.08.2021 17:04:15 Services Pvt. Ltd.. Thus, it is submitted that no opinion should be rendered in the writ petition on the issue of Section 7Q.

16. The EPF Authority, while determining the amount due under Section 7A, has the option to levy interest at that stage itself under Section 7Q. However, it is noticed that on most occasions, after the determination under Section 7A, a fresh inquiry is initiated for demanding interest and for imposition of penalty in the form of damages under Section 14B. An order passed under Section 14B is appealable to the Tribunal under Section 7I. However, no appellate remedy is provided in respect of a demand of interest raised against the employer under Section 7Q. There are several petitions filed before various High Courts challenging the demand for payment of interest imposed in terms of Section 7Q. Therefore, in case of orders passed under Sections 7Q and 14B, two forums i.e., the Tribunal and the High Court in a writ petition, adjudicate whether the demand for damages and interest, respectively, is valid or not.

19. In Arcot Textiles Mills Ltd. (supra), the Supreme Court was dealing with a standalone demand under Section 7Q. Thus, if an independent order is passed under Section 7Q, no appeal would lie and the only remedy that would then be available is in the form of a writ petition, the scope of which would be very limited.

20. A perusal of the practice being followed in other EPF offices, as also in the CGIT, Mumbai, which is reflected in the orders placed on record clearly shows that usually, common orders are being passed under Sections 7Q and 14B. Even if separate orders under Sections 7Q and 14B are passed, Digitally Signed By:DINESH SINGH NAYAL Signing Date:31.08.2021 17:04:15 the CGIT, Mumbai has taken the view in CGIT-2/EPFA/51 of 2019 titled M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Mumbai v. RPFC & Ors. that the same would be appealable in view of the composite nature of the order. The CGIT, Delhi too in Gorkha Securities v. RPFC, Delhi North has admitted an appeal challenging separate orders passed under Sections 7Q and 14B and observed as under:

iv) The proceedings under Section 7Q and 14B were held together and the order sheet clearly describes the proceedings as being one under Sections 7Q and 14B - "Proceeding under Section 14B & 7Q of the EPF&MP Act, 1952". Finally, however, two separate orders of the same date were passed under Sections 7Q and 14B.

22. In this factual background, the CGIT stayed the demand under Section 14B, subject to certain conditions, but did not render any finding on the composite nature of the orders or on the amount demanded under Section 7Q. The present writ petition has therefore been filed before this Court arguing that this finding of the Tribunal was incorrect.