AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J
1) The instant application has been preferred by the applicant for modification/ correction of order passed by this Court in WPL No. 89 of 2022 dated 08.07.2025.
2) Mr. Pankaj Singh, learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that WPL No. 89 of 2022 was disposed of by this Court on 08.07.2025, wherein statement came to be recorded on behalf of the EPFO regarding interdependent of Sections 7Q and 14B of The Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short “Act, 1952”). He would contend that the submission was made inadvertently. He would further contend that it was a bonafide mistake, and therefore, the part of the order may be recalled or modified.
3) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents would oppose. They would submit that pursuant to order passed in WPL No. 89 of 2022, the respondent No. 1 has already availed remedy and learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) has granted interim order in its favour. They would further submit that on behalf of EPFO submission was made according to law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Arcot Textile Mills Limited Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and others, 2013 (16) SCC 1 and it was recorded verbatim. They would contend that this application deserves to be dismissed.
4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.
5) It appears that the employer committed default to fulfill his statutory obligations to the Provident Fund, therefore, an order was passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner according to the provisions of Section 14B of the Act, 1952 to recover penal damages. The said order was challenged by the employer by filing an appeal. A separate order was passed under the provisions of Section 7Q of the Act, 1952 which deals with levy of interest on due amounts.
6) The learned Advocate who appeared for respondent No. 5 in WPL No. 89 of 2022 made following contention :-
“according to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arcot Textile Mills Ltd. vs. RPFC & Others, 2013 (16) SCC 1, although no appeal lies against an order under Section 7Q of the EPF Act, the outcome of the appeal under Section 14B would be decisive – if the appeal under Section 14B is allowed, the Section 7Q order would automatically go, and if the 14B appeal is dismissed, the petitioner must pay the interest as well; hence the writ petition is not maintainable. ”
7) Taking into consideration the fact that such findings were recorded on the basis of submission made by learned Advocate appearing for Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and same is supported with the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. I do not find any good ground to allow this application. Accordingly, the instant MCC is hereby rejected. No order as to cost(s).