Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Sabina, Satyen Vaidya, JJ.
M/s Bio Veda Action Research Company - Petitioner
Versus
The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Shimla - Respondents
CWP No. 654 of 2023
Decided On : 23-03-2023
Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 - Section 7-O, A, (1), I – Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Waiver to deposit amount - Claim complete waiver - Aggrieved against order passed by Tribunal in EPF petitioner has again approached this Court for enabling it to claim complete waiver – Court while adjudicating upon order passed by a statutory authority, can interfere only in cases where order impugned is shown either to be without jurisdiction or palpably illegal. [Para 14]
Finding of the Court: Tribunal after taking notice of all pleas raised on behalf of petitioner, has allowed waiver of only 25% - Tribunal has held that question whether beauty advisors were employees of petitioner, so as to bring them within coverage of Act, has to be decided while adjudicating appeal of petitioner finally - Tribunal has taken into consideration fact that definition of basic wage under Act includes “all emoluments” - Thereafter, Tribunal proceeded to grant waiver of 25% of statutory requirement of deposit to petitioner - In exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution, Court will not substitute its own reasons for reasons provide by statutory Tribunal - Impugned order in no manner finally adjudicates upon rights of parties - Contention raised by petitioner in appeal are subject to adjudication by Tribunal - Noticeably, petitioner had not made out any case of its incapacity or inability to deposit statutorily required amount as ordered by Tribunal.
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Satyen Vaidya, J.
By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following substantive reliefs:
ii) Alternatively, the impugned order dated 23 January, 2023 passed under Section 7-O of the EPF Act, 1952, to the extent that it directs the petitioner herein to deposit 50% of the amount assessed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Shimla under Section 7A of the EPF Act, may kindly be modified to require the petitioner to deposit a token amount, as may be deemed appropriate in facts and circumstances of the case.
iii) Alternatively, the impugned order dated 23 January, 2023 passed under Section 7-O of the EPF Act, 1952 to the extent that it directs the petitioner herein to deposit 50% of the amount assessed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Shimla under Section 7A of the EPF Act may kindly be modified to require the petitioner to deposit the said amount in an FDR by marking a lien on the said FDR in favour of the learned CGIT instead of requiring the said amount to be deposited with the learned CGIT.”
2. The respondent conducted an inquiry under sub-Section (1) of Section 7A of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short, “The Act”) against the petitioner and vide order dated 30.07.2022 held a total sum of Rs.23,18,06,900/- due from the petitioner for the period January, 2016 to December, 2018 on account of the liability towards employees’ provident fund. A sum of Rs.13,60,44,861/- has been adjudged towards Employees’ Provident Fund of identified employees and a sum of Rs.9,57,62,039/- has been held payable for unidentified employees.
3. Aggrieved against the order dated 30.07.2022 passed by the respondent, petitioner has preferred an appeal under Section 7-I of the Act, before the Tribunal. Petitioner also approached the Tribunal for waiver to deposit the amount due from him as determined by the respondent under Section 7A. Initially, the Tribunal vide order dated 13.10.2022, allowed a waiver of 25% of the amount required to be deposited by the petitioner as a pre-condition to file appeal. Petitioner assailed the said order before this Court by way of CWP No. 7776 of 2022. A Division Bench of this Court allowed the petition of the petitioner in following terms:
4. The learned Tribunal has again passed an order on 23.01.2023 deciding the application of the petitioner under Section 7-O of the Act for waiver to deposit the amount. The Tribunal has again allowed the waiver to the extent of 25% only. Petitioner has been directed to deposit 50% of the assessed dues with the respondent-authority within three weeks.
5. Aggrieved against the order dated 23.01.2023 passed by the Tribunal in EPF No.13/2022, petitioner has again approached this Court on the grounds that petitioner had been able to demonstrate existence of a prima-facie case for enabling it to claim complete waiver under proviso attached to section 7-O of the Act. It had shown that the order passed by the respondent, as impugned before the learn
To avail benefit of proviso attached to Section 7-O of Act, employer has to satisfy Tribunal of reasons to claim waiver or reduction in deposit of amount.
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 Provision....
Point of law : Under the proviso to Section 7-O of the Act of 1952, the Tribunal may waive or reduce the pre-deposit amount for reasons to be recorded in writing.
The Tribunal can dismiss appeals for non-compliance with deposit requirements; however, compliance claims must be considered, allowing parties an opportunity to present their arguments.
The court affirmed that pre-deposit requirements under the Employees Provident Funds Act are essential for appeal admission, reinforcing the importance of procedural fairness.
Statutory authorities cannot maintain an appeal regarding pre-deposit reductions under the Employees' Provident Funds Act due to lack of personal grievance and required statutory authority.
The main legal point established is that each case should be considered on its own merits for pre-deposit under Section 7-O of the EPF Act, and passing standard orders without due consideration to th....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
