S. Mohammed Noufal vs The Employees Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal

S.R. Bannurmath, C.J.—Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 29th September, 2009 dismissing the writ petition the present writ appeal is filed.

The appellant is the Managing Partner of an industrial establishment. He is aggrieved mainly by the issuance of summons to appear in person u/s 7A(1)(b) of the Employees'' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''. The main contention of the appellant before the learned Single Judge and this Court is that after issuance of Ext.P1 summons, he had filed various applications and as they were not entertained, he was forced to file a statutory appeal before the appellate authority and in view of the pendency of the appeal, he has sought for issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the entire proceedings under Ext.P6.

The learned Single Judge considering the fact that the appeal itself is premature and not maintainable as against the issuance of summons u/s 7A, and finding that possibly this is an effort on the part of the appellant to drag on the proceedings unnecessarily, rejected the writ petition with costs. Hence the present appeal

We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Counsel for the respondents. In order to consider the rival contentions, it is necessary to look into the provisions of the Act, especially Section 7A and 7I. u/s 7I of the Act, any person aggrieved by a notification issued by the Central Government, or an order passed by the Central Government or any authority, under the proviso to Sub-section (3) or Sub-section (4) of Section 1, or Section 3, or Sub-section (1) of Section 7A, or Section 7B, or Section 7C may prefer an appeal to a Tribunal against such notification or order. u/s 7A orders that can be passed are (a) in a case where a dispute arises regarding the applicability of the Act to an establishment or (b) to determine the amount due from any employer. By looking into the wordings, the orders under Sub-section (1) of Section 7A and the provisions of Section 7A itself indicate that no appeals other than for the grievance u/s 7A of the Act can be filed. In the present case, there are absolutely no orders passed. In fact, only summons has been issued which according to the learned Counsel amounts to an order u/s 7A of the Act. We do not agree with this proposition. Issuance of summons is a routine matter as soon as a dispute is filed. In fact, Section 7A(2) (a) and (b) provide for enforcing the attendance and production of documents. But this Sub-section will not come within the appellate jurisdiction as per Section 7I of the Act. Since no orders u/s 7A(1) of the Act have been passed, the appeal filed u/s 7I of the Act is totally not maintainable one. The learned Single Judge has rightly looked into this aspect and we do not find any ground to unsettle the said findings.

Hence we find no merit in the appeal and the writ appeal stands dismissed.