The main legal point established in the judgment is that the recovery provisions under Section 8 to 8-F of the 1952 Act provide reasonable opportunity to the defaulter before adopting coercive measures and emphasize the Act's beneficial nature in promoting the welfare of employees.

Mr. S.A. Dharmadhikari, J.

1. The present intra Court appeal by Employees Provident Fund Organization ( "EPFO" for brevity) filed under Section 2(i) of M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 assails the final order of the writ Court dated 04.04.2016 passed in WP No. 1451/2016 whereby the petition assailing the attachment of bank account of the petitioner/respondent herein pursuant to order passed under Section 7-A of the Employees' Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952 ( "1952 Act for brevity) has been allowed with the following observations and findings :-

"As per the scheme of the Act of 1952, against the assessment order passed by the competent authority, the assessee has a right of appeal before the appellate tribunal. The period prescribed therefor is 60 days. The tribunal also has power to issue interim order. The measures for recovery including coercive measures can be taken recourse to if the assessee without filing the appeal avoids payment thereof and the authority is left with no option than to ensure recovery through such measures. In the instant case, admittedly the period of limitation for filing the appeal had not expired while impugned attachment order was passed. Thereafter, appeal was filed within limitation and interim order has been passed (supra). Therefore expiry of the period of limitation taking recourse to coercive measures by the Assessing Officer, in the opinion of this Court, is not in accordance with law and in fact and in effect tantamounts to an arbitrary exercise of power lacking bonafides. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the impugned attachment order cannot withstand the test of reasonableness under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, therefore, the same deserves to be and is accordingly quashed. However, assessment order under Section 7-A of the Act of 1952 since is subject matter of appeal, the petitioner shall abide by the orders passed by the appellate authority.

With the aforesaid, writ petition stands allowed."

2. Short but interesting question that falls for consideration in the present case is whether 1952 Act restrains the recovery officer from exercising the power of recovery u/s 8 to 8-F for realising the money determined u/s 7-A for a period of 60 days prescribed as limitation period for preferring appeal to the Tribunal against order passed u/s 7-A, or the recovery officer can straight away exercise the power of recovery u/s 8 to 8-F of 1952 Act. Submission Of Appellant.

3. The EPFO is before this Court aggrieved by the finding recorded by the writ Court that so long as the limitation period for filing appeal to the EPF Appellate Tribunal against the order passed under Section 7-A of the 1952 Act does not expire the recovery officer of the EPFO is not empowered to make recovery to give effect to Section 7-A order.

3.1 In support, it is submitted that the 1952 Act is a beneficial legislation to provide for institution of provident fund, pension fund and deposit-linked insurance fund for employees in factories and other establishments and therefore finding recorded by the writ Court comes in conflict with the object of the Act as it restrains the money determined under Section 7-A to be recovered through means statutorily permissible u/s 8 to 8-F of the 1952 Act. The decision of Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in the case of Employees Provident Fund Organization v. Rollwell Forge Ltd. (LPA No. 12/2010 in SCA No. 3347 of 2009) decided on June 15, 2011 is pressed into service.

Submission of Respondent

4. Per Contra, learned counsel for the petitioner/respondent herein relying upon the decisions of 2001 (4) SCC 362 (Mohan Wahi v. Commissioner of Income Tax Varanasi and Ors.), 2002 (93) FLR 883 (Ferro Concrete Construction (I) Limited v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, 2013 LLR 7 (Bombay) ( Navnit Motors Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India), 2013 LLR 1251(Madras) (T.I. Metal Forming Chennai v. R.P.F.C.) and 2009-IV-LLJ 893 (Pyram