IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.
SPC Engineers Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner - Respondent
W.P.(C) 5614 of 2022 & CM Appl. 16638 of 2022 (stay), CM Appl. 16639 of 2022 (for filing additional documents)
Decided On : 21-07-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to cgit order regarding pf dues. (Para 1) |
| 2. jurisdiction of the tribunal to hear appeals. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. defense of validity in tribunal's rejection. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. clear provisions of section 7i regarding appeals. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 5. rules assisting but not superseding statute. (Para 8) |
| 6. appeals must follow statutory provisions. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 7. dismissal of the writ petition. (Para 11) |
JUDGMENT
Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J. (Oral)
1. The present writ petition has challenged the order of the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) dated 02.03.2022 in case bearing No.ATA No.D-1/07/2022. The petitioner had approached the learned CGIT against the order dated 15.12.2021, passed by the APFC cum Recovery Officer in exercise of the powers under Section 8B to 8G of the Employees Provident Fund & Misc. Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') directing the establishment to deposit Rs.14,99,785/- as the arrear PF dues of the employees. The respondent had taken an objection that the appeal challenging action under Section 8B to 8G of the Act is not maintainable. Learned Tribunal has inter alia held that a plain reading of the provision of Section 7I of the Act shows that the appeal is maintainable against the orders passed in exercise of the power under Section 7-A or 7-B or 7-C or 14-B of the Act by the appropriate authority. It was further inter alia held that no order passed under Section 8B to 8G of the Act is appealable to the Tribunal.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Tribunal has fallen into a grave error and that in fact, the Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. It has been submitted that the decision of the appeal might have been either way but the Tribunal should not have reached to the findings that it has no jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Rule 7 of the Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997, which is reproduced herein below:
"7. Fee, time for filing appeal, deposit of amount due on filing appeal.--
(1) Every appeal filed with the Registrar shall be accompanied by a fee of Rupees five hundred to be remitted in the form of Crossed Demand Draft on a nationalized bank in favour of the Registrar of the Tribunal and payable at the main branch of that Bank at the station where the seat of the said Tribunal situate.
(2) Any person aggrieved by a notification issued by the Central Government or an order passed by the Central Government or any other authority under the Act, may within 60 days from the date of issue of the notification/order, prefer an appeal to the Tribunal.
Provided that the Tribunal may if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the prescribed period, extend the said period by a further period of 60 days.
Provided further that no appeal by the employer shall be entertained by the Tribunal unless he has deposited with the Tribunal a Demand Draft payable in the Fund and bearing 75% of the amount due from him as determined under Section 7-A.
Provided also that the Tribunal may for reasons to be recorded in writing, waive or reduce the amount to be deposited under Section 7-O."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that sub Rule (2) of Rule 7 specifically provides that any person aggrieved by a notification issued by the Central Government or an order passed by the Central Government or any other authority under the Act, may within 60 days from the date of issue of the notification/order prefer an appeal to the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that bare reading of this Rule makes it crystal clear that any notification issued by the Central Government can be challenged by way of filing of an appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Rule 7 of the Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997 does not confine the remedy of appeal to any particular provision. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further sub
The right to appeal under the Employees Provident Fund Act is strictly governed by statute and does not extend to orders made under Sections 8B to 8G, as recognized by the court.
The rejection of a review application does not eliminate the right to appeal against the original order under Section 7A of the Act.
The court holds that a Prohibitory Order under the 1952 Act is to be kept in abeyance pending consideration of the stay application by the Tribunal.
The main legal point established is that the pendency of a representation before the concerned authority can exclude the time for filing an appeal, and the provisions of the Limitation act, 1963, can....
The court cannot extend the statutory time limit for filing appeals under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, and the principles of natural justice were not violate....
An appellate tribunal lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal against an order rejecting a review application. The statutory scheme permits appeals only against the original order, and the tribunal must....
Point of Law : Presence or absence of mens rea and/or actus reus would be a determinative factor in imposing damages Under Section 14B, as also the quantum thereof since it is not inflexible that 100....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.