Bhavans Vidhya Mandir vs The Assistant Provident Fund

P.N. Ravindran, J.—By Ext.P1 order passed on 9.11.209 u/s 14B of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, the respondent herein directed the petitioner to pay the sum of Rs. 3,53,550/- as damages. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed an appeal ATA 825 (7) 2009 before the Employees Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. In that appeal, the petitioner has also prayed for waiver of the deposit required to be made u/s 7O of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 read with Rule 7 of the Employees Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997. The petitioner has also prayed for stay of operation of the order impugned in the appeal.

It appears after the appeal was filed, the respondent issued Ext.P5 order on 8.12.2009 u/s 8F of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 directing the Lord Krishna Bank to pay over the sum of Rs. 4,74,876/- from the account maintained by the petitioner with that bank. This writ petition was thereupon filed challenging Ext.P5 and seeking a direction to the respondent to refrain from recovering damages pursuant to Ext.P1 order during the pendency of Ext.P2 appeal.

When the writ petition came up for hearing toady, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the appeal filed by the petitioner is coming up for consideration before the Appellate Tribunal on 15.1.2010 and that leaving open the petitioner''s contentions this writ petition may be disposed of with a direction to the Appellate Tribunal to consider the prayer for interim relief and for waiver of deposit and to pass orders thereon either on 15.1.2010 or expeditiously thereafter and till such time to stay further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 order, which is impugned in that appeal.

Sri. Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Employees Provident Fund organisation submitted that the appeal is coming up for consideration before the Appellate Tribunal on 15.1.2010 and that it is for the Appellate Tribunal to consider whether the interim relief sought by the petitioner should be granted and whether the condition regarding the pre- deposit should be dispensed with. The learned standing counsel also submitted that the petitioner will in any case have to deposit the interest levied u/s 7Q of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 for the reason that no appeal lies from the order levying interest. He submits that in such circumstances, no orders are called for in this writ petition.

I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned Counsel appearing on either side. It is common case that appeal filed by the petitioner before the Appellare Tribunal from Ext.P1 order is coming up for hearing before the Appellate Tribunal on 15.1.2010. It is for the Appellate Tribunal to decide whether the petitioner should be exempted from complying with the provisions of Section 7O of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and also whether during the pendency of the appeal, the operation of Ext.P1 order should be stayed. In such circumstances, as the appeal is coming up for hearing on 15.1.2010 i.e., within another 10 days from today, and in the light of the clear admission made by the petitioner in para 4 of the writ petition as regards payment of interest, I dispose of the writ petition with the direction that in the event of the petitioner depositing the interest portion namely 1,21,266/- within one week from today with the respondent, further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 order shall stand stayed till the Appellate Tribunal passes orders on the application filed by the petitioner for interim relief in Ext.P2 appeal.