Back
ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL
Kshetriya Shree Gandhi Ashram Camp Office – Appellant
Versus
Employee Provident Fund – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Rajesh Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sachindra Upadhyay, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
2. This writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of order dated 26.02.2021 passed by respondent No.1 in appeal filed before Appellate Tribunal as well as recovery order dated 02.03.2021 passed by respondent No.2.
3. The facts, as disclosed in the petition, are that the petitioner is a registered society and has been established with an object of popularizing hand woven cloth by helping rural population of the country and to develop Cottage Industry. On 05.01.2021, an order was passed under Section 14-B as well as 7-Q of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter called as "1952 Act") directing for payment of damages and penal interest of Rs.33,73,011/- on the ground that employer has not remitted the Provident Fund and allied dues within stipulated time as per Sections 6, 6A, 6C of 1952 Act and also not deposited the administrative charges for the period 01.4.2017 to 24.02.2020.
4. Against the said order, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before respondent No.1 on 09.02.2021. The Tribunal
Point of Law : Presence or absence of mens rea and/or actus reus would be a determinative factor in imposing damages Under Section 14B, as also the quantum thereof since it is not inflexible that 100....
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 court upheld the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal's interim order requiring pre-deposit for appeal, finding it interlocutory and not subject to interference.
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.
Tribunal's requirement for a 20% pre-deposit under Section 14B of the EPF Act is invalid as no such provision exists for appeals under that section.
The court affirmed that pre-deposit requirements under the Employees Provident Funds Act are essential for appeal admission, reinforcing the importance of procedural fairness.
Compliance with the deposit requirements under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 is essential to proceed with an appeal.
The court considered the purpose of the Act as a social welfare legislation and allowed the appellant to avail the appellate remedy before the Tribunal, considering the overall facts and circumstance....
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
