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
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




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.

Headnote:(A) Employees Provident Fund & Misc. Provisions Act, 1952 - Sections 7I, 8B to 8G - Order rejecting maintainability of appeal - Appellant challenged the Tribunal's order stating it had jurisdiction under the Act to entertain the appeal against a directive to deposit PF dues. Tribunal held no appeal was maintainable under Sections 8B to 8G, and such decisions cannot be appealed. (Paras 1-11)

(B) Jurisdictional issue - Right of appeal is strictly governed by statute; an appeal only exists where expressly provided. (Para 10)

Facts of the case:
The writ petition challenged a CGIT order denying jurisdiction to hear the appeal regarding PF dues arising from the Act, placing reliance on rules granting right to appeal. Respondent contended that the rules do not permit an appeal against orders made under Sections 8B to 8G.

Findings of Court:
The claim for appeal not being maintainable was upheld, affirming statutory limitations on appeal in this context.

Issues: The key issues were whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the appeal based on the statutory interpretation of the applicable provisions of the Act and related rules.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the right of appeal is a statutory creation, necessitating express legal provision for maintainability; no appeal exists under the disputed sections.

Result: Petition dismissed.

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

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