Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 1556
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. CHANDRU
The Management of T.V.S. Motor Company Limited, Tamilnadu, Rep. by its General Manager (Accounts) K. Subramanian
Versus
The Presiding Officer, Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, (Ministry of Labour and Employment), New Delhi & Another W.P.Nos.8148 & 17860 of 2011 & M.P.Nos.1 & 1 of 2011
Decided On : 29-03-2012
For the Petitioners:K. Kasthuri, SC for S. Jayaraman (Both Wps), Advocates.
For the Respondent:K.Ramu, K. Gunasekar Advocates.
In the absence of challenge to a substantive order, consequential order cannot be subject matter of challenge.
Headnote:
EPF Act - Challenge to levy of damages under Section 14B and 7Q of the EPF Act - Section 7A, Section 14B, Section 7Q
Fact of the Case:
The Management filed two writ petitions challenging the orders passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal regarding the levy of damages and interest under the EPF Act. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal stating that the substantive order under Section 7A of the EPF Act was not under challenge.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had not questioned the order passed under Section 7A of the EPF Act which gave rise to the levy of damages and interest. The second writ petition challenging the order directly before the court without availing the benefit of appeal was also deemed not maintainable.
Issues: Challenge to levy of damages and interest under the EPF Act, maintainability of the second writ petition
Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of challenge to a substantive order, consequential order cannot be subject matter of challenge. Relief of quashing the consequential order could not be granted without challenging the basic order.
Final Decision: Both the writ petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs.
1. The two writ petitions were filed by the same Management.
2. In the first writ petition, the challenge is to the order passed by the first respondent viz., Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal made in A.T.A.605(13)/2006 dated 31.12.2010. By the aforesaid order, the Tribunal held that their challenge to the levy of damages under Section 14B of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short EPF Act) is not maintainable as there was no challenge to the findings rendered in the statutory order passed under Section 7A of the EPF Act dated 11.09.2006. The writ petition was admitted on 30.03.2011. Pending the writ petition, an interim stay was granted.
3. Subsequently, the same Management filed the second writ petition being W.P.No.17860 of 2011, challenging levy of damages and interest under Section 14B and 7Q of the EPF Act dated 10.06.2011. When that writ petition came up for hearing, it was directed to be posted along with the previous writ petition. In that writ petition, no interim order was granted though an application was filed in M.P.No.1 of 2011.
4. Heard the arguments of Mr.K.Kasthuri,learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.S.Jayaraman, counsel for the petitioner, Mr.K.Ramu, learned counsel for the respondents in W.P.No.8148 of 2011 and Mr.K.Gunasekar, learned counsel for the respondent in W.P.No.17860 of 2011.
5. It is seen from the records that the petitioner was initially issued with an order under Section 7A of the EPF Act dated 17.02.2006 in respect of their Unit at Hosur. Under the said order, they were directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,41,709.85 failing which they were also reminded that they will have to pay damages under Section 14B and interest under Section 7Q of the EPF Act. Subsequently, damages under Section 14B and interest under 7Q of the EPF Act were also levied. As against the order levying damages and interest for delayed payment of administrative charges, an appeal was filed before the Tribunal in ATA 605(13)/2006. That appeal was initially entertained by the Tribunal and interim order was granted. The petitioner also filed an application to raise additional grounds.
6. Before the Tribunal, a counter statement was filed by the Provident Fund Department. In response to the averments made in Para 10.8 to Para 10.11 of the appeal grounds, the PF Department in Page 61 of the typed set averred as follows:-
"Para 10.8 to Para 10.11: An employer does not have any obligation to pay P.F. contributions beyond the wage limit of Rs.5000/- Rs.6500/-as applicable from time to time. Nor, any employer is compelled to pay contributions beyond the statutory limit. However, any employee who is remitting P.F contributions on the total wages paid, beyond the wage limit, and if the employer is also ready to pay the contributions on the total wages paid, shall do so after filing a joint declaration by the employees and the employer. The very purpose of the joint declaration is to confirm that the employer shall pay the Inspection or Administrative Charges on the total wages paid. In the instant case, the employees have filed a joint declaration duly signed by the employer and employees wherein the employer has signed a declaration to the effect that they are agreeable to pay the Administrative Charges or Inspection Charges, as the case may be, on the total wages on which the contributions are recovered and paid to, the Fund."
7. After hearing the appeal, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal by stating that the substantive order under Section 7A of the EPF Act was not under challenge and they had subsequently deposited the amount. In the absence of challenge to the substantive order mere challenge to the levy of damages and interest cannot be entertained.
8. In the second writ petition, the petitioner has not moved the Tribunal and directly came to this Court challenging the order passed under Section 14B and 7Q dated 10.06.2011.
9. In both the writ petitions, counter affi
