Back
2000 Supreme(Kar) 734
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
M.P. Chinnappa, J.
Alvares and Thomas — Appellant
Vs.
Recovery Officer, Employees Provident Fund Organisation and Another — Respondent
Writ Petition No. 25540 of 2000
Decided on : 28-07-2000
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. K.M. Nataraj, for the Appellant.
Mr. V.P. Padmanabha Kedilaya, for the Respondent.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the requirement to deposit 75% of the amount determined by the Respondent as a condition for entertaining an appeal applies only to Section 7(a) and not to Section 7(c) of the Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.
Headnote:
Section 7(c) - Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 - The court held that the requirement to deposit 75% of the amount determined by the Respondent as a condition for entertaining an appeal only applies to Section 7(a) of the Act and not to Section 7(c. Therefore, the impugned order directing the Petitioner to deposit the full amount under Section 7(c) was set aside.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner appealed before the Appellate Authority under Section 7(c) of the Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The Authority imposed a condition that the Petitioner shall deposit the full amount determined by the 2nd Respondent under Section 7(c) of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned order directing the Petitioner to deposit the full amount under Section 7(c) was not in accordance with the law as the requirement to deposit 75% of the amount determined by the Respondent only applies to Section 7(a) of the Act and not to Section 7(c.
Issues: The issue was whether the requirement to deposit 75% of the amount determined by the Respondent as a condition for entertaining an appeal applies to Section 7(c) of the Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the provisions of Section 7(a) and Section 7(c) of the Act and concluded that the requirement to deposit 75% of the amount determined by the Respondent only applies to Section 7(a) and not to Section 7(c.
Final Decision: The impugned order directing the Petitioner to deposit the full amount under Section 7(c) was set aside, and the Appellate Authority was directed to proceed with the case in accordance with law without insisting for the deposit of the amount.
M.P. Chinnappa, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties.
2. The only grievance of the Petitioner herein is that he has preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 7(c) of the Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The Authority, while granting stay order as sought for, imposed a condition that the Petitioner shall deposit the full amount determined by the 2nd Respondent under Section 7(c) of the Act.
3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has vehemently argued that the question of depositing 75% of the amount determined by the Respondent would occur only in case the determination was done only under Section 7(a) of the Act.
4. Admittedly, the impugned order came to be passed by the 2nd Respondent under Section 7(c) of the Act. Therefore, depositing the amount is not made a condition precedent to entertain the appeal. I have carefully gone through the provision of law. Only Section 7(a) mandates that, to entertain the appeal, the Appellant should deposit 75% of the amount so determined. But, such direction is not found in Section 7(c) of the Act. Therefore, the impugned order in so far as it relates to directing the Petitioner to deposit the full amount is set aside. Appellate Authority is directed to proceed with the case in accordance with law without insisting for the deposit of the amount. Consequently, annexure B is also quashed.
5. Petition is disposed of accordingly.
