IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, V. SRISHANANDA, JJ.
The Regional Provident and Others – Appellants
Versus
M/s G4S Secure Solutions India Pvt. Ltd and Others – Respondents
Writ Appeal No. 920 of 2018 (L-PF)
Decided On : 27-01-2021
Employees' Provident Funds - Appeal against Attachment Order - The court directed the appellate authority to pass appropriate orders in respect of pre-deposit as provided under Section 7-O of the Act of 1952 within thirty days, and restrained coercive action against the respondent for the same period.
Fact of the Case:
An order was passed under Section 7A of The Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, fastening the liability of Rs.16,31,58,755/- on the respondent. The respondent filed an appeal and a writ petition, contending that no attachment could have been ordered when an appeal was pending and an application under Section 7-O of the Act of 1952 had been preferred.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the appellate authority to pass appropriate orders in respect of pre-deposit as provided under Section 7-O of the Act of 1952 within thirty days, restrained coercive action against the respondent for the same period, and allowed the Department to proceed in future cases as the court had not decided the matter on merits.
Issues: The issues involved the attachment order, the pending appeal, and the application under Section 7-O of the Act of 1952.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for the appellate authority to address the pre-deposit as provided under Section 7-O of the Act of 1952 and restrained coercive action against the respondent for a period of thirty days.
Final Decision: The appellate authority was directed to pass appropriate orders in respect of pre-deposit as provided under Section 7-O of the Act of 1952 within thirty days, and coercive action against the respondent was restrained for the same period.
JUDGMENT :
1. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I along with one another have filed this present appeal being aggrieved by the order dated 29.01.2018 passed in W.P.No.1082/2018.
2. The facts of the case reveal that an order was passed under Section 7A of The Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1952' for short) against the sole respondent fastening the liability of Rs.16,31,58,755/-.
3. The order was passed on 15.12.2017 and thereafter, interim order was issued by the appellant No.1 herein on 02.01.2018 directing the attachment of the bank account against respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 before this Court did prefer an appeal before the appellate authority within 60 days as provided under the Act of 1952 and by filing a writ petition raised contention before the learned Single Judge that no such attachment could have been ordered specially when he has filed an appeal and has also preferred an application under Section 7-O of the Act of 1952 in respect of pre-deposit.
4. Sections 7-I and 7-O of the Act of 1952 reads as under:-
(2) Every appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed in such form and manner, within such time and be accompanied by such fees, as may be prescribed.
7-O. Deposit of amount due, on filing appeal.-No appeal by the employer shall be entertained by a Tribunal unless he has deposited with it seventy-five per cent, of the amount due from him as determined by an officer referred to in section 7A:
Provided that the Tribunal may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, waive or reduce the amount to be deposited under this section."
5. Unfortunately, the appeal was not taken up by the appellate authority and the Attachment Order was passed and today also the fact remains that the appeal has not been taken up by the appellate authority and no order has been passed in respect of application preferred under Section 7-O of the Act of 1952 by the appellate authority. The amount, which was under attachment has been reverted back to respondent No.1 on account of the order passed by this Court, which is dated 29.01.2018. Resultantly, without adverting to the merits of the case, the present writ appeal stands disposed of with the following directions :
(b) The observations made by the learned Singly Judge will not come in the way of the appellate authority.
(c) For a period of thirty days, there shall be no coercive action against the respondent No.1.
(d) The findings arrived at by the learned Single Judge will not come in way of the Department in future cases as this Court has not decided the matter on merits. The Department shall be free to proceed ahead in accordance with in all other matters as this Court has not passed any order on merits in respect of the issue involved in this present case.
The statutory provisions of the Act, 1952 regarding appeal, waiver of pre-deposit, and attachment of bank accounts were central to the court's decision.
The court held that recovery actions under the 1952 Act cannot proceed while appeals are pending, ensuring due process.
The court upheld the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal's interim order requiring pre-deposit for appeal, finding it interlocutory and not subject to interference.
Statutory authorities cannot maintain an appeal regarding pre-deposit reductions under the Employees' Provident Funds Act due to lack of personal grievance and required statutory authority.
Compliance with the deposit requirements under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 is essential to proceed with an appeal.
Tribunal's requirement for a 20% pre-deposit under Section 14B of the EPF Act is invalid as no such provision exists for appeals under that section.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.