The main legal point established is that each case should be considered on its own merits for pre-deposit under Section 7-O of the EPF Act, and passing standard orders without due consideration to the facts of each case would not be appropriate.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. - This hearing has been done through video conferencing.

2. The present petition challenges the impugned order dated 1st February, 2022, in appeal No. D-2/01/2022 titled M/s. Tenneco automotive India Pvt. Ltd. v. aPFC/RPFC, Gurugram, by which the CGIT has directed pre-deposit of 30% of the assessed amount as a pre-condition for filing the appeal. The said appeal challenged the order dated 28th October, 2021, in Ref:No.HR/GGN-West/C-31/10325/5045, passed by the Regional Commissioner (C&R), Employees' Provident Fund Organization, under Section 7a of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions act, 1952 (hereinafter 'EPF act').

3. The submission of Mr. arora, ld. counsel for the Petitioner, is that the impugned order shows that there is a complete non-application of mind by the CGIT, in as much as there is already a sum of Rs.45,31,313/-, which stood deposited by the Petitioner with the Respondent/RPFC, Gurugram (hereinafter 'RPFC'), which was well within the knowledge of the CGIT. However, the impugned order does not factor in this already deposited amount of Rs.45,31,313/-, into the 30% pre-deposit amount directed to be deposited, under Section 7-O of the EPF act. In fact, even a reference to an amount of Rs.11 lakhs having been already deposited by the Petitioner was made in the order, which amount is also completely incorrect. He further submits that the CGIT has been passing identical orders in various such matters, and there is hardly any case where waiver on the pre-deposit amount is being considered or granted by the CGIT under Section 7-O of the EPF act.

4. Mr. Pradhan, ld. Counsel who appears on advance notice for the Respondent, submits that it is not in dispute that the sum of Rs.45,31,313/- has already been deposited by the Petitioner.

5. Heard and perused the record. The initial order under Section 7a of the EPF act was passed on 28th October, 2021. Vide said order, the Petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.1,14,59,596/- as the assessed amount. Pursuant to this order, the Petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.45,31,313/-, without prejudice to its right and contentions. Subsequently, the order dated 28th October, 2021, was challenged by the Petitioner by way of proceedings under Section 7-O of the EPF act and in the said appeal, the CGIT has directed the Petitioner to deposit 30% of the assessed amount as under:

'Considering the submissions advanced by the counsel for both the parties an order need to be passed on the compliance/waiver of the conditions laid under the provisions of sec 7-O of the act. There is no dispute on the facts that the persons in respect of whom the establishment has not complied the PF contribution had joined as Trainees. at this stage no opinion can be formed on their status after completion of the Training. at the same time it need to be considered that the period in respect of which inquiry was initiated are from 7/18 to 9/2019 and the amount assessed is 1,14,59,596/- and a part there of amounting to eleven lakh has already been deposited by the appellant. Without going to the other detail s as pointed out by the appellant for challenging the order as arbitrary, and at this stage of admission without making a roving inquiry on the merits of the appeal, it is felt proper to extend protection to the appellant pending disposal of the appeal. Thus on hearing the argument advanced, it is felt proper and desirable that pending disposal of the appeal, the said amount be protected from being recovered from the appellant as the judicial approach requires that during the pendency of the appeal the impugned order having serious civil consequence must be suspended.

In view of the said principle as has been laid down by the appex court and considering the grounds taken in the appeal, the period of default, the amount assessed, it is felt that the circumstances do not justify total waiver of the condition of pre deposit. But the ends of justice would be met