Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

9. 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 judgment 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 Services Pvt. Ltd.. Thus, it is submitted that no opinion should be rendered in the writ petition on the issue of Section 7Q.

14. 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.

17. 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.

18. The present petition was also heard with W.P.(C) 8485/2021 where a similar issue of composite orders under Section 7Q and 14B was raised. In the said petition, it was shown that the practice being followed in other EPF offices, as also in the CGIT, Mumbai, is that common orders are being passed under Sections 7Q and 14B. Even if separate orders under Sections 7Q and 14B are passed, the CGIT, Mumbai has taken the view in CGIT-

25. In fact, 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 when interest under Section 7Q is included in an order passed under Section 14B, the same could be appealed under Section 7I. The relevant observation of the ld. Division Bench is set out below:

"14. The Supreme Court in Arcot Textile Mills Limited (supra) had examined the scope and ambit of an order u/s 7Q and 7-I. After exhaustively examining the said provisions it was held that an appeal would not be maintainable against an order passed under Section 7Q, but when interest under Section 7Q is included in the order passed under Section 7A, 7B or Section 14B, the same could be made subject matter of challenge in the appeal, when an appeal is preferred against an order passed under the said sections."