The main legal point established in the judgment is that the proviso clause to Section 7-O of the EPF Act, allowing for waiver of the deposit amount, should be applied only in exceptional circumstances with reasons recorded in writing, and not in a routine manner. The court emphasized the need for strict implementation of the deposit requirement and the consideration of genuine reasons for granting waiver.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum EPF Appellate Tribunal in EPFA No.108 of 2019 and quash its order dated 14.08.2019 in so far as it directs the petitioner to deposit 40% the dues determined in terms of the order of the respondent dated 19.05.2014.)

The order dated 14.08.2019 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum EPF Appellate Tribunal in EPFA No.108 of 2019 is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The writ petitioner is an establishment covered under the provisions of EPF & MP Act and it has been regularly paying EPF contribution on basic wages in accordance with Section 2(b) of the Act. The respondent claimed the contribution on various allowances for the period from March 2011 to August 2013. The petitioner filed W.P.No.3730 of 2014 before this Court challenging the said proceedings. By order dated 07.02.2014, the respondent was given liberty to proceed with the case but not to make any demand. By order dated 19.05.2014, the respondent demanded contribution of Rs.2,33,88,768/-. The above order was not enforceable and was subject to the result of the writ petition. Therefore, no appeal would lie against the said order. On 14.02.2019, W.P.No.3730 of 2014 was dismissed with liberty to petitioner to approach the appropriate forum subject to satisfaction of delay.

3. Accordingly, the writ petitioner filed an appeal before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Chennai which is the Appellate Tribunal, in terms of Section 7-I of the Act. The appeal was numbered as EPFA No.108 of 2019. The appellant pleaded that the delay of 59 days may be condoned and that the claim related to 1087 persons including trainees who are not covered under the definition of employee under Section 2(f) of the Act, only 118 employees continued to be on the rolls of the petitioner, the balance 969 persons were unidentifiable and that therefore, waiver of deposit of amount should be substantially reduced as a condition for stay of the order of the respondent dated 19.05.2014.

4. This exactly is the dispute now raised in the present writ petition, where waiver of 40% can be granted without assigning reasons, as per the proviso Clause to Section 7-O of the Act.

5. The learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner states that the proviso clause is unambiguous that reasons must be recorded in writing for grant of waiver or to reduce the amount to be deposited under Section 7-O of the Act. In the absence of any such reasons which is recorded in writing, the order is to be scrapped. It is further contended that the writ petitioner/company has given adequate reasons for grant of waiver and considering the reasons, the authorities ought to have granted the waiver to the maximum and contrarily they are fixing 40% in a routine manner. In all such cases, a further complaint is raised that the respondent is mechanically granting waiver and directing the parties to pay 40% of the amount without any logic or without providing any reasons in writing. However, the said statements are disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent by contending that though the reasons are not recorded in the present case, the waiver is granted in an uniform manner by the Tribunal concerned.

6. In the present case, the writ petitioner is prolonging and protracting the litigation despite the fact that they are liable to pay a huge sum i.e., more than Rs.2 Crore. It is further contended that they are evading payment by way of filing various litigations and therefore the present order impugned has to be sustained.

7. Considering the arguments of the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, this Court is of the considered opinion that undoubtedly, a deposit is a precondition fo