An appeal under the Employees' Provident Fund Act is premature if there is no determination of dues, as required by Section 7A.

ORDER

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 16/7/2019 (Annex. 1) passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur ('the Tribunal1), whereby, the appeal filed by the petitioner under the provisions of Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 ('the Act') has been rejected as not maintainable.

2. The authority under the Act initiated proceedings against the petitioner Company under Section 7A of the Act and came to the conclusion that as the petitioner was engaging 20 employees in its establishment, the provisions of the Act were applicable. The petitioner company disputed the issue of coverage as well as assessment of dues, however, by order dated 2/3/2009 (Annex.2),the assessment order was issued determining the liability of the petitioner company.

3. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner company filed appeal before the Tribunal. The appeal came to be decided by order dated 19/2/2010 (Annex.3), with the following direction:

"Hence ordered. The appeal is allowed and the matter is remanded to the authority to ascertain the strength of employees by giving opportunity to the employer to place his case and the appellant is directed to appear within one month from the date of this order.

Enquiry has to be done by officer who had not conducted inspection of establishment."

4. Again an order post remand came to be passed on 20/5/2013 (Annex.4), whereby, it was held that the establishment was rightly covered under the provisions of the Act w.e.f. 22/4/2004 and require compliance.

5. Again an appeal was filed by the petitioner company, which came to be decided by order dated 16/8/2016 with the following direction:

"10. Considering all the facts of the case, by setting aside impugned order dated 20.05.2013, matter is remanded back to respondent for fresh consideration. Respondent is directed to examine those four persons (whose name mentioned in para No. 6.10 at 7 of the appeal) to ascertain whether they actually worked in the appellant establishment or not. Further respondent is directed to reconsider the Scheduled Head for coverage of appellant establishment. File be consigned to record room after due compliance."

6. Pursuant to second order of remand dated 16/8/2016, the authority again passed order dated 31/7/2018 (Annex.7), wherein, it was inter alia ordered as under:

"Therefore having considered all aspect of the case, I am inclined to agree with findings of previous assessing officers and on Enforcement Officer's report as well for the reasons cited therein and accordingly uphold that establishment is coverable w.e.f. 22.04.2004.Now, I shall proceed with determination of dues. Separate notice be issued for that fixing new date of hearing."

7. The petitioner, aggrieved by the order dated 31/7/2018 (Annex.7), again filed appeal. The appellate authority by the impugned order, relying on the judgment of this Court in Autogrinx Engineers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner : 2004 (2) WLC 681, came to the conclusion that as there was no order of determination of amount of dues passed under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 7A of the Act, the appeal was premature and consequently dismissed the same by observing as under:

"The out-come of this discussion clearly leads to the conclusion that unless there is an order of determination of amount of dues passed under clause (b) of sub-sec.(1) of Section 7 of the Act, which is subsequent to the order of coverage or applicability of the Act passed under lause (a) of sub-Sec.(1) of Sec.7 of the Act, 1952, the appeal is premature and cannot be admitted for consideration by this Tribunal. Thus, the appeal is not admitted and dismissed for the reasons mentioned above. Order pronounced. May be consigned to records after due formalities."

8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the appeal as premature inasmuch as the determina