SWATANTER KUMAR, J.

( 1 ) BEING aggrieved from the order dated april 19, 2004 passed by the Assistant provident Fund Commissioner, the employees Provident Fund Organisation under Section 14-B of the Employees provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions act, 1952 and also from the recovery of notice dated September 10, 2004 issued by the recovery Officer, Employees Provident Fund organisation, New Delhi, the petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying for quashing of both these orders and restraining the respondents from taking any coercive steps in effecting recovery from them. The petitioner company has been carrying on its business for a considerable time and was brought under the provisions of the Act with effect from March, 1, 1975. There was default in its contribution by the petitioner company and the respondent no. 1 issued a notice dated February 12, 2004 for initiating proceedings for default for the period 1997-2004. The representation of the petitioner was considered by the authorities. However, vide order dated April 19, 2004 the respondents raised the demand and liability of the petitioner to the extent of Rs. 30,13,744. 00. Against this order the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 7 (1) of the Act. The appeal was filed in the Registry of the Appellate tribunal but the same could not be processed and listed for hearing because the Presiding officer had not been appointed by the competent Authority. In the meanwhile on september 10, 2004 respondent No. 2 issued a recovery certificate for recovery of the demands which have been raised against the petitioner by the initial order. The amount is sought to be recovered as arrears under Section 8 of the Act and the petitioners have been directed to appear in- person requiring them to show cause why they be not committed to civil prison in execution of the said recovery certificate.

( 2 ) THE basic grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents are enforcing recovery of an illegal demand which is bad in law as well as based on wrongful computation. Such coercive steps including the civil imprisonment of the petitioner is being taken for the fault of the respondents themselves as the appeal filed by the appellant within time is not being heard despite requests. It is also contended that the demand raised by the respondents consists primarily of interest and damages under section 14-B of the Act and enforcing such a liability is totally arbitrary. The petitioners also filed an affidavit before this Court dated october 25, 2004 stating therein that a sum of rs. 4,78,780. 00 was remitted towards the total outstanding to the recovery officer and now nothing is due from the petitioner concerned,

( 3 ) THERE is no dispute to the fact that the demand by the respondents dated April 19, 2004 mainly consists of element of interest and damages. Large sums are not due on account of default of payment and the petitioner has also made payment of more than Rs. 4 lacs as aforestated after issuance of recovery certificate. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that against the damages and/or interest imposed under Section 14-B of the Act by the Competent Authority no appeal lies under Section 7 (1) of the Act and as such there cannot be a stay and/or waiver of such amount by any Forum. Resultantly it is contended that this Court should also not grant any stay to the petitioners. However, the appeal preferred by the petitioner would be heard shortly.

( 4 ) SECTION 7 (1) of the Act gives right to a person aggrieved by an order passed under sub-section (3) or sub-section (1) of Section 4, section 3 (1) or Section 7-B except an order rejecting an application for review in sub-section (5) thereof or Section 7-C or section 14-B may prefer an appeal to a Tribunal against such notification or order. Once such an appeal is filed, the obligation under Section 7 (1) of the Act is upon the Tribunal to grant opportuniti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document