Assistant Provident Fund C.E.P.F.O vs Vegetable and Fruit Promotion Council, Mythir Bhavan, Rep. By Its Chief Executive Officer

K.Surendra Mohan, J.—The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization, is in appeal challenging the judgment dated 8.6.2016 of the learned Single Judge allowing W.P.(C).19100 of 2005.

The main contention that is put forward before us is that another writ petition filed by the appellant herein, W.P.(C).30222 of 2005, is still pending before the learned Single Judge. It is pointed out that, the learned Single Judge has relied upon the very finding of the Appellate Authority under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short "the Act"), which is under challenge in the writ petition filed by the appellant. It was on the basis of the said finding that the judgment appealed against has been rendered. Therefore according to the learned counsel, it is only appropriate that both the writ petitions are considered together and disposed of. For that purpose, it is contended that, it is necessary to remit the matter to the learned Single Judge.

Adv. A.N. Rajan Babu appears for the respondent and we heard the learned counsel.

In W.P.(C).19100 of 2005, an order demanding damages for delayed remittances of Provident fund dues was under challenge. At the same time, another order levying interest under Section 7Q of the Act was under challenge in separate proceedings before the Appellate Authority. The challenge against the levy of damages by the respondent herein was allowed by the Appellate Authority. The appellant has challenged the said order in W.P.(C). 30222 of 2005, which is still pending. Relying on the fact that, the claim for damages made by the appellant was already found against, the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent. According to the learned counsel, the said reasoning is not justified in view of the fact that, the question of levy of damages is pending consideration in the connected Writ Petition. Relying on Annexure-IV judgment produced along with I.A.1442 of 2016, it is pointed out by the learned counsel that, this Court has, in two earlier Writ Appeals, had remitted both the Writ Petitions to the learned Single Judge for being heard together.

Since the judgment appealed against has proceeded on the basis that, the claim for damages made by the appellant has been found against, which finding has not become final yet, in view of the pendency of the Writ Petition filed by the appellant, we are of the view that it is necessary to remit the matter back to the learned Single Judge for fresh consideration.

In view of the above, this Writ Appeal is allowed. The judgment dated 8.6.2016 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C).19100 of 2005 is set aside. The learned Single Judge is directed to consider and dispose of both W.P.(C).Nos.19100 of 2005 and 30222 of 2005 together.