AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.N. Basha, J.—Mr. Vaidyanathan, learned standing counsel for BPF takes notice for the 1st respondent. By mutual consent of both the learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the first respondent, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal.
The petitioner has come forward with the present petition seeking for the relief of forbearing the first respondent from initiating recovery proceedings against the petitioner including the recovery proceedings in No. CC1/4/TN/52226/Comp/Regl/2009 dated July 8, 2009 issued to the second respondent and lift the attachment in respect or petitioner''s current Account C.A. No. 014010200027441 and further directing the 1st respondent to permit the petitioner to pay the admitted amount of contribution in monthly installments.
Mr. S. Ravindran, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has already preferred a review application dated July 9, 2009 challenging the impugned order of the 1st respondent u/s 7A of the Employees'' Provident Fund Act determining the contribution of the petitioner towards] provident fund. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the pursuant to the original order, attachment proceedings is also initiated by the Assistant Provident Fund commissioner on July 8, 2009 in his proceedings No. CC1/4/TN/52226/Comp/Regl./2009.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner is, having bright chances of succeeding in the review application and as such attachment proceedings is liable to be quashed. It is submitted that the attachment order dated. July 8, 2009 way be lifted pending disposal of the, review application dated July 9, 2009 on the file of the 1st respondent herein as no prejudice would be caused to the respondents herein.
Heard the learned standing counsel for BPF on the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
The fact remains that the petitioner preferred a review application dated July 9, 2009 before the 1st respondent herein; challenging the original order dated May 26, 2009 passed u/s 7-A of the Employees'' Provident Fund Act. It is seen that pursuant to the order passed u/s 7-A of the Employees Provident Fund Act, attachment proceedings were also initiated by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner in Proceedings No. CC1/4/TN/52226/Comp/Regl/2009 dated July 8, 2009. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view, that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent if an order is passed by this Court to the effect of lifting the attachment order dated July 8, 2009 passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and also pass an order to the effect of keeping such order in abeyance till the disposal of the review application and thereafter further preference of the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal on the condition that the petitioner pays the admitted amount to the 1st respondent pursuant to the original order dated May 26, 2009 passed u/s 7-A of the Employees'' Provident Fund Act.
It is submitted before this Court that out of the admitted liability of Rs. 1,28,85,873/-, the petitioner already paid a sum of Rs. 55,03,809/- and the remaining amount is Rs. 73,82,064/-. Considering such submissions and also considering that already substantial amount was paid by the petitioner herein, this Court is constrained to direct the petitioner herein to pay the balance amount in ten equal installments commencing from the month of August 2009. It is made clear that in the event of the failure of the petitioner to comply with the above said condition, it is open to the authorities concerned to proceed with the attachment proceedings. This Court is also constrained to make it further clear that in the event of making the payment of first installment by the petitioner, the attachment order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings No. CC1/4/TN/52226/Cotnp/Regl/2009 dated July 8, 2009 shall be kept in abeyance till the disposal of the review application and till the date of first actual hearing of the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal.
Before parting with this matter, this Court is constrained to state that in view of the orders of attachment which are being passed even prior to the expiry of the period of appeal and revision, this Court is flooded with the filing of similar petitions. Therefore, in order to avoid the frequent filing of similar petitions and also with a view to secure the interest of the petitioner and the respondent/Employees'' Provident Fund Organization, this Court is constrained to make it clear that the orders passed u/s 7-A and 14-B of the Employees'' Provident Fund Act and consequential order of attachment, if any to be issued by the respondent/Employees Provident Fund Organization, shall be kept in abeyance as per the terms of the Act and Rules under the following circumstances, namely,
(i) During the period of limitation prescribed u/s 7-I read with Rule 7 of E.P.F. Appellate Tribunal (Procedure), Rules 1998 and Section 7B of E.P.F Act for preferring the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal.
(ii) During the period of pendency of Review petition before the authority.
(iii) Till the date of first actual hearing of the waiver petition filed along with the appeal filed before the Appellate Tribunal.
With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions is closed.