A composite order under Sections 7Q and 14B mandates appealability, while independent orders under Section 7Q are not appealable.

JUDGMENT

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

2. In this writ petition, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 5th April, 2021 by which an order under Section 7Q of the Employees' Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter, `EPF Act') computing interest amount of Rs. 27,39,507/- is under challenge.

3. Ms. Shruti Munjal, ld. counsel submits that the Petitioner - Establishment was assessed under Section 7A and the assessment under Section 7A was issued on 24th September, 2019. Following the judgment of the Supreme Court in The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (II) West Bengal v. Vivekanada Vidyamandir & Ors [Civil Appeal No. 6221/2011, decided on 28th February, 2019], thereafter, in order dated 24th September, 2019, the Respondent had proposed imposition of damages and interest. The relevant portion of the said order is set out below:

"The employers in respect of the Establishment are further directed to immediately file the statutory returns in respect of all the employees.

It is, however, added that in case the Establishment has concealed any facts and subsequently they come to the notice of this office, the department will be at liberty to initiate fresh inquiry under Section 7-a for the period under inquiry and the Establishment will be liable to pay liability as determined by the department.

The Establishment is also liable to pay the amount of interest @ 12% as provided under Section 7-Q from the due date till the actual date of payment. This assessment under Section 7-a shall be without prejudice to any demand raised under section 14B of EPF & MP Act, 1952.

This order is without prejudice to any other action that may lie under the provisions of the Act for which the employer in respect of the Establishment has rendered himself liable."

4. Subsequent to the order passed under Section 7A a notice was issued by the Respondents on 16th October, 2020 for defaults in the period from 1st April, 2017 to 10th October, 2020, which is stated to have been received on 20th October, 2020, and the establishment was asked to show cause as to why damages under Section 14B and interest under Section 7Q ought not to be imposed. Hearings were thereafter conducted before the authority and finally, vide order dated 9th February, 2021, the authority came to the conclusion that the establishment is liable to pay damages and interest on the dues assessed under Section 7A. This was a common order passed on both the issues on 9th February, 2021. The said order is set out below:

"With reference to the submission of the establishment with regard to para 2 of Annexure D to their letter dated 27.10.2020 relating to the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment dated 28.02.2019 in Civil Appeal No. 6221/2011, it is absolutely misleading and incorrect interpretation of the issue. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has only reiterated the well establishment issue which was time and again maintained by various orders of EPF authorities and upheld, by various High Courts. But since the establishments did not wish to adhere to this and preferred to raise the matter to the Hon' ble Supreme Court vide the present appeals (referred in the ibid judgment).

Further, the Hon'ble Madras High Court in its judgment dated 01.10.2020 in W.P. No. 31515/2019, W.P. No. 949/2020, W.M.P. No. 31713/2019 & W.M.P. No. 1151/2020 had affirmed the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court mentioning that there should be no prospective overruling. unless it was so indicated in a par