IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory requirement of depositing 75% of the determined amount under Section 7-O of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, for maintaining the appeal under Section 7-I.

JUDGMENT :

Biren Vaishnav, J.

1. This appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent has been filed challenging the order dated 17/12/2015 passed by the learned Single Judge. By the order under challenge, the learned Single Judge dismissed the petition of the appellant – Mandal.

2. Facts in brief, the learned Single Judge has set out the same and reads as under:

“16. Feeling aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner herein filed, on or around 14th December, 2004, appeal under Section 7-I of the Act before the Learned Appellate Tribunal constituted under the provisions of the Act.

17. Under the provisions of the Act, the appeal against the order passed under Section 7-A of the Act can be filed on compliance of the condition prescribed under Section 7-O of the Act which obliges the appellant to deposit 75% of the amount due and determined by officer under Section 7-A of the Act. The condition prescribed under Section 7-O of the Act is condition precedent for maintaining the appeal under Section 7-I of the Act.

18. In this view of the matter, Learned Appellate Tribunal considered the petitioner’s application for waiver of the condition of pre-deposit and by order dated 16.02.2005, the Learned Appellate Tribunal declined the relief of waiver and directed the petitioner to comply with condition under Section 7-O of the Act and deposit 75% of the adjudicated amount. In the said order dated 16.02.2005, the learned Tribunal also clarified that if the amount is not deposited within four weeks then the appeal shall be treated as dismissed.

19. Further hearing was scheduled on 15.03.2005, which was to take place on compliance of the said order dated 16.02.2005 i.e. compliance of the condition under Section 7-O of the Act.

20. The relevant part of the said order dated 16.02.2005 reads thus:-

“In the facts of the case, the condition of deposit of 75% pf the determined amount cannot be waived. Let 75% of the determined amount be deposited with the APFC, Ahmedabad within four weeks from today and receipt be filed with the Registrar a week thereafter. If the amount ordered is deposited, appeal shall be deemed admitted and in such an eventuality, Registrar shall complete the service and pleadings and list the matter for final hearing before the Tribunal. In case, the amount ordered above is not deposited, appeal shall be treated as dismissed and file be consigned to record room. Fix before the Registrar on 15.03.2005. Till the disposal of the appeal, operation of impugned order shall remain stayed subject to appellate depositing 75% of the determined amount as ordered above.

21. It appears that the petitioner failed to comply the said condition within the time limit prescribed by the learned Tribunal i.e. within four weeks. Actually, the petitioner did not deposit the amount and did not comply the condition under Section 7-O of the Act according to the order dated 16.02.2005, even after the time limit mentioned in the said order dated 16.02.2005.

22. In this view of the matter, learned Appellate Tribunal finally passed order dated 07.10.2005 and dismissed the appeal on the ground of non-compliance of the condition.

23. The said order dated 07.10.2005 reads thus:-

“Copy of the appeal is served. Copy of order dated 16.02.2005 stipulates deposit of 75% of amount within four week when the appeal will be admitted otherwise it stands rejected and appeal file consigned to records. The res. from the appellant side has confirmed that amount has not yet made/deposited. The case is accordingly closed.

24. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said orders dated 31.08.2004, 19.10.2004, 16.02.2005 and 07.10.2005 and has challenged the said orders in present petition.”

3. Mr.Shevade, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that the order and proceedings under Section 7-A of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, are without jurisdiction. That the school had never reached or crossed the threshold of 20 or more employees. The previous He