Back
2021 Supreme(Del) 832
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
GAURAV ENTERPRISES – Petitioner
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 8485 of 2021 & CM APPL. 26248 of 2021
Decided On : 25-08-2021
For the Appellant :Ms. Maninder Acharya, Senior Advocate with Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath, Mr. Rajiv Shukla, Mr. Viplav Acharya, Mr. Shikhar Kishore, Ms. Shivani Kapoor and Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Mr. Shivanath Mahanta, Advocate for R-2 & 3. Mr. Rizwan, Advocate for R-4 to 9
The appealable nature of composite orders under the EPF Act, as established by the Supreme Court in Arcot Textiles Mills Ltd., and the need to prevent multiplicity and duplicity of proceedings.
Headnote:
EPF Act - Composite Orders - Sections 14B, 7Q - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the composite nature of orders under Sections 14B and 7Q of the EPF Act, emphasizing the appealable nature of composite orders and the lack of appeal for independent orders under Section 7Q. The court highlighted the practice of passing common orders and the need to prevent multiplicity and duplicity of proceedings. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Arcot Textiles Mills Ltd. was relied upon to establish the appealable nature of composite orders.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner challenged the order passed by the CGIT, which refused to grant a stay in respect of the interest component imposed under Section 7Q of the EPF Act. The Petitioner argued that the orders under Sections 14B and 7Q should be treated as one composite order.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the appeal challenging the orders passed under Sections 7Q and 14B is maintainable before the Tribunal, emphasizing the composite nature of the orders and the appealable nature of composite orders as established by the Supreme Court in Arcot Textiles Mills Ltd.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the orders under Sections 14B and 7Q should be treated as composite orders, and the appealability of the orders under Section 7Q.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need to prevent multiplicity and duplicity of proceedings and held that the orders under Sections 14B and 7Q are a composite order, making the appeal challenging the orders maintainable before the Tribunal.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the court directed the parties to appear before the CGIT. No coercive measures were to be taken against the Petitioner in respect of the interest amount imposed under Section 7Q until the next hearing.
JUDGMENT :
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
1. This hearing has been done through video conferencing.
2. The present petition has been filed challenging order dated 3rd August, 2021 passed by the CGIT, by which the CGIT has refused to grant a stay in respect of the interest component imposed under Section 7Q of the Employees' Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter, “EPF Act”) on the ground that no opinion can be formed at this stage as to whether the order which was passed by the original authority, i.e., the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (hereinafter, “RPFC”), is a composite order under Sections 14B and 7Q of the EPF Act.
3. The brief background to this petition is that vide a common show-cause notice dated 23rd May, 2019, proceedings were initiated against the Petitioner under Sections 14B and 7Q of the EPF Act. The said show-cause notice relates to alleged defaults occurring during the period from 1st November, 2013 till 31st March, 2019. The show-cause notice commences with the title - “Summons to appear for hearing u/s 14B of the EPF and MP Act, 1952 (and order for payment of interest u/s 7Q for 01/11/2013 to 31/03/2019”. In response to this show-cause notice, a common reply is filed by the Petitioner on 10th June, 2019. Thereafter, further submissions have also been made in the form of letters and documents on 11th June, 2019. After receipt of the documents, including challans which showed some deposits by the Petitioner, a revised notice was issued by the RPFC on 25th September, 2019, which is again a joint notice under Sections 14B and 7Q of the EPF Act. The revised computation is as under:
| Account | 14B | 7Q | Total |
| I | 4329204 | 2843052 | 7172256 |
| II | 278671 | 179706 | 458377 |
| X | 2184113 | 1425243 | 3609356 |
| XXI | 127022 | 82281 | 209303 |
| XXII | 2480 | 1602 | 4082 |
| Total | 6921490 | 4531884 | 11453374 |
(Rupees One Crore Fourteen Lakh Fifty Thousand Three Hundred and Seventy Four Only)
4. Common replies to the revised notice were again filed by the Petitioner on various dates between 2nd January, 2020 to 3rd June, 2021. Hearings have been held before the authority on various occasions. A perusal of the order sheets shows that they clearly mention that these are “Proceeding under Section 14B & 7Q of the EPF & MP Act, 1952”. Each order sheet which has been placed on record, dated 10th June 2019, 1st July, 2019, 9th January, 2020, 24th January 2020 and 10th September, 2020, shows that a common order has been passed under Sections 14B and 7Q of the EPF Act.
5. However, thereafter, the RPFC chose to pass separate orders under Section 14B and Section 7Q. Under Section 14B, the total demand raised was to the tune of Rs.69,21,490/-. The order under Section 14B is passed on 26th May, 2021 and communicated to the Petitioner on 15th June, 2021. The order under Section 7Q is also passed on 26th May, 2021 and communicated to the Petitioner on 15th June, 2021. The total amount computed under Section 7Q is Rs.40,81,884/-. Thus, both orders bear the same date and have been communicated to the Petitioner on the same date.
6. Considering the said two orders as composite orders, the Petitioner approached the CGIT. The CGIT, while admitting the appeal, imposed a stay on the assessment of damages under Section 14B, subject to pre-deposit of 10% of the assessed amount of damages. However, insofar as the order under Section 7Q is concerned, no stay was granted. The operative portion of the CGIT’s order is extracted herein below:
“Hence in this case it is directed that there should be an interim stay on the execution of the impugned order levying damage, pending disposal of the appeal. But the said interim order cannot be unconditional. The appellant is directed to deposit 10% of the assessed amount of damage through challan
