The main legal point established in the judgment is that a composite order under Section 14-B and 7-Q of the EPF Act is appealable, and the appellant is not required to pre-deposit any amount as assessed under Section 14-B and 7-Q of the EPF Act.

VINOD GOEL, J.

1. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 03.07.2015 passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (in short "Tribunal") in Appeal No. ATA-628(4)-2015.

2. The facts giving rise to the writ petition, bereft of unnecessary details, are that the petitioner company failed to remit the Provident Fund and allied dues for the period from December, 1997 to August, 2014 within the stipulated time frame i.e. within 15 days from the close of every month as required under Para 38 of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 (in brief "EPF scheme"). A show cause notice dated 18.12.2014 under Section 14-B and 7-Q of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (in short "EPF Act") was issued to the petitioner by the Employees Provident Fund Organization. Ultimately, by order dated 27.04.2015, Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Delhi (South) in exercise of his powers conferred under Section 14-B and 7-Q of the EPF Act assessed the damages for the relevant period to the tune of Rs. 31,58,286/- and interest at a sum of Rs. 20,62,601/- thus amounting to total sum of Rs. 52,20,887/-. The petitioner by this order dated 27.04.2015 was directed to pay the amount within 15 days.

3. The petitioner company preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order dated 27.04.2015 issued by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner before the Tribunal under Section 7-I of the EPF Act.

4. Before the Tribunal it was argued by the petitioner that there is no requirement of pre-deposit of any amount at the time of filing the appeal. However, on behalf of the respondent, it was argued that pre-deposit is mandatory at the time of filing of the appeal under Section 7-O of the EPF Act. The Tribunal after quoting section 7-O of the EPF Act held that a simple reading of section 7-O of the EPF Act duly reveals that it is mandatory for the appellant to deposit 75% of the assessed amount at the time of filing an appeal, if order has been passed by the Commissioner under Section 7-A of the EPF Act and admittedly the appeal was against the order passed under Section 14-B of the Act and not under Section 7-A of the Act. The Tribunal also observed that the petitioner/appellant was supposed to deposit the assessed amount under Section 7-Q of the Act as the order under Section 7-Q is not appealable. The Tribunal stayed the impugned order till further orders subject to the petitioner/appellant depositing the amount assessed under Section 7-Q of the Act with the concerned authority within 45 days, failing which the operation of the order shall be vacated automatically.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that as the Tribunal has wrongly held that order under Section 7-Q of the EPF Act is not appealable, it had directed the appellant to deposit the assessed amount under Section 7-Q of the EPF Act. He submits that it is a composite order under Section 14-B read with Section 7-Q of the EPF Act and is thus appealable.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent argued that the amount directed to be deposited by the petitioner was not a “pre-deposit amount” for filing the appeal rather it is a conditional order to deposit the amount for the purpose of granting interim relief during subsistence of appeal.

7. At this juncture, it would be relevant to refer to Section 7-I of the EPF Act, which reads as under:-

“7–I. Appeals to the Tribunal - (1) 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 I, or section 3, or sub-section 1 of section 7A, or section 7B except an order rejecting an application for review referred to in sub-section 5 thereof, or section 7C, or section 14B may prefer an appeal to a Tribunal against such order.

(2) Every appea