I. P. Mukerji, J. - (1.) By its order dated 9th May, 2016, the appellate Tribunal directed that the respondents could not recover more than 50% of the assessed amount until further orders. The appeal was by the petitioner against an order under Section 14 (B) of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The petitioner is aggrieved by this order.
(2.) The question is whether this order is sustainable.
(3.) In M/s. Shiv Harbal Research Laboratory v. Assistant P.F. Commissioner reported in 2016 LLR 55 , a Supreme Court decision, Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir opined that the principles of Section 7-O of the said Act could not be incorporated by implication in the appeal provision relating to Section 14 (B). Section 14 (B) gave power to the authorities to impose damages as a warning to the employees not to commit a breach of statutory requirements of Section 6, but at the same time it is meant to provide compensation or redress to the beneficiaries. There was no provision for a pre-deposit for preferring an appeal under Section 14(B) order. Hence, the appeal could be filed without any deposit.;