DECCAN CHRONICLE Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER-II

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:

(2.) Heard Mr. C.Niranjan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. T.Bala Jayasree, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for respondent No.1, and Sri G.Venkateshwarlu, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for respondent No.2.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent has initiated proceedings under Sec. 7A(1)(b) of Employees' Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (in short '1952 Act') for the period from April 2017 to October 2019 on the ground that EPF contributions are to be paid without restricting it to the employees salary limit of Rs.15,000.00 per month and without considering any of the objections raised by the petitioner, the first respondent has passed an order dtd. 26/11/2020 under Sec. 7A of the Act determining the PF contribution dues payable by the petitioner as Rs.14,86,08,946.00 for the said period. Despite the financial constraints, the petitioner Company has paid the total amounts towards contributions by taking few instalments and the said amount has also been accepted by respondent No.1 without any protest and the Company is also regularly paying its current provident fund contributions well in time in accordance with the provisions of the law. However, in view of some delay in depositing the EPF contributions, respondent No.1 has issued a notice dtd. 9/10/2023 proposing to claim damages for the period January, 2011, to July, 2021, after a lapse of 12 years. Further, without giving due consideration to any of the submissions of the petitioner and without considering the sickness and other circumstances including Corporate Insolvency Process carried out under the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and in a mechanical manner, respondent No.1 had passed the order dtd. 16/7/2024 under Sec. 14B of the 1952 Act directing the petitioner to pay Rs.13,28,40,598.00 as damages for the period from January, 2011, to July, 2021. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the statutory appeal before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad, under Sec. 7-I of the 1952 Act raising several grounds and mainly contending that the petitioner is not liable to pay any damages and also filed two petitions in the said appeal seeking to waive the condition of pre-deposit and for suspension of the order dtd. 16/7/2024. However, without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has passed the order dtd. 1/11/2024 directing the petitioner to deposit 20% of the amount mentioned in the order dtd. 16/7/2024. Learned counsel has contended that the Tribunal failed to consider the issues relating to the financial sickness and endeavors to revive the Company through CIRP, which is the basic criteria for imposing the condition and thereby mechanically ordered to pre-deposit 20% of the determined amount. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal is contrary to the material available on record and not in accordance with law. Learned counsel has further submitted that as per Sec. 7-O of the 1952 Act the pre- deposit of the amount arises in case of the appeals filed against the orders passed under Sec. 7A of the 1952 Act only but the said condition is not applicable in case of the appeals filed under Sec. 14B of the 1952 Act. The said principle was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Shiv Harbal Research Laboratory v. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner.,2016 Labour Law Reporter 55. Therefore, it is contended that the order passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside to the extent of ordering to pay 20% of the determined amount under Sec. 14B of the Act within a period of six weeks.