SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
DEEPA SHARMA, J.
Apex Buildsys Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner - Respondent
Writ Petition (C) No. 2757 of 2015
Decided On : 23-03-2015

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Vinay Sabharwal and Neha Sabharwal.
For the Respondent:R.C. Chawla, Advocates.

Statutory right of the petitioner to file an appeal before the Tribunal and the obligation of the Government to appoint the Presiding Officer of the Appellate Tribunal to ensure the protection of statutory rights.

Headnote:

Employees Provident Fund - Statutory Appeal - The court directed the respondent not to take any coercive measure pursuant to the impugned order till the statutory appeal is being heard by the Tribunal, in view of the statutory right of the petitioner to file an appeal before the Tribunal and the failure of the Government to appoint the Presiding Officer of the Appellate Tribunal.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner submitted that proceedings under Section 14B and 7Q of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 were initiated against the petitioner for a specific period. The petitioner filed a statutory appeal against the order, but the Appellate Tribunal's Presiding Officer had not been appointed by the Central Government, leading to the appeal not being heard.

Finding of the Court:

The court directed the respondent not to take any coercive measure pursuant to the impugned order till the statutory appeal is being heard by the Tribunal, in view of the statutory right of the petitioner to file an appeal before the Tribunal and the failure of the Government to appoint the Presiding Officer of the Appellate Tribunal.

Issues: Failure of the Government to appoint the Presiding Officer of the Appellate Tribunal, denial of lawful legal rights of statutory appeal to the petitioner, and the apprehension of coercive actions for recovery of the assessed amounts.

Ratio Decidendi: In view of Section 7-I of Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952, it is a statutory right of the petitioner to file an appeal before the Tribunal. The court protected the statutory right of the petitioner based on the precedent of similar cases and directed the respondent not to take any coercive measure pursuant to the impugned order till the statutory appeal is being heard by the Tribunal.

Final Decision: The court directed the respondent not to take any coercive measure pursuant to the impugned order till the statutory appeal is being heard by the Tribunal, with the understanding that the direction does not express an opinion on the merit of the case before the Appellate Tribunal.

JUDGMENT :

Deepa Sharma, J.

Issue notice. Mr. R.C. Chawla, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondent.

2. The petitioner in the present petition has submitted that the proceedings under Section 14B and 7Q of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) were initiated by the respondent against the petitioner for the period 08/2005 to 04/2013.

3. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner passed an order under Section 14B and 7Q of the Act against the petitioner. On 18.12.2014, the petitioner preferred the statutory appeal under Section 7-I of the Act against the said order dated 28.11.2014.

4. It is submitted by the petitioner that Central Government has not appointed any Presiding Officer of the Appellate Tribunal and the result is that the statutory Appeals are not being heard by Appellate Tribunal.

5. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the post of the Presiding Officer Appellate Tribunal is vacant from 01.12.2014.

6. It is submitted that there is every apprehension to the petitioner that respondent may initiate coercive actions for recovery of the amounts assessed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner.

7. It is submitted that the act of Central Government, by not appointing the Presiding Officer of the only Appellate Tribunal, amounts to denial of lawful legal rights of statutory Appeal to the petitioner and it is prayed that the respondent be restrained from taking any coercive measure against the petitioner in pursuance to the impugned order till the pendency of the statutory appeal filed on behalf of the petitioner before the statutory Appellate Tribunal.

8. On earlier occasions also, the same situation had arisen and in the case of Pashupati Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd., W.P.(C) 586/2006 and Centaury Fibre Plates Pvt. Ltd. v. EPFO, W.P.(C) No. 8742/2014, this Hon'ble Court had observed as under:

"Since the Tribunal is not in existence, therefore, the directions passed in the order dated 17.11.2014 shall remain stayed".

This Hon'ble Court also in another case W.P. (C) No. 15093/2004 titled as Old Village Industries Ltd. v. Asstt. PF Commissioner has given directions that if appeals are filed and proof thereof is shown to the Recovery Officer, then said Officer would not affect recovery of the demand issued under Section 7A of the Act till decision of the stay application and also made it clear that the direction would obviously operate only till the disposal of the stay application by the competent authority.

9. It is not disputed on behalf of the respondent that Presiding Officer of the statutory Tribunal has not yet been appointed by it. It is also admitted that the petitioner has filed the statutory Appeal and it could not be heard for the absence of the Presiding Officer of Appellate Tribunal.

10. In view of Section 7-I of Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952, it is a statutory right of the petitioner to file an Appeal before the Tribunal.

11. Unfortunately, his appeal could not be heard since the Tribunal is not headed by its Presiding Officer and the Government has failed to appoint the Presiding Officer. The statutory right of the petitioner needs to be protected.

12. As brought to my notice by the petitioner, in the earlier petitions mentioned above, this right of the petitioner in these petitions, on the same facts and circumstances, had been protected.

13. In view of the ratio of the above-mentioned judgments, I hereby direct the respondent not to take any coercive measure pursuant to the impugned order till statutory appeal is being heard by the Tribunal. However, nothing in this order shall tantamount to expression of opinion on the merit of case of parties before Appellate Tribunal. With this direction, the present petition stands disposed of.

C.M. No. 4932/2015 also stands disposed of.


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top