MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT BENCH AT GWALIOR
G.S. Ahluwalia, J.
Sumedha Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Central Government Industrial Tribunal And Others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 28789 of 2019
Decided On : 13-01-2020
EPF ACT - SECTION 7-Q - INTEREST ON DELAYED PAYMENT - APPEAL - NOT MAINTAINABLE: The order passed under Section 7-Q of the EPF Act, which deals with the interest payable by the employer on delayed payment, is not appealable under Section 7-I of the Act. The language of Section 7-I is plain and unambiguous, and it does not provide for an appeal against an order passed under Section 7-Q. The Supreme Court has also held that an order under Section 7-Q is not appealable. The fact that different benches of the CGIT may have entertained appeals against orders passed under Section 7-Q does not make the impugned order bad, as the orders passed by different benches of the CGIT are not binding on each other or on this Court.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a private limited company, was saddled with a liability of Rs. 48,76,050/- for the period between July 2009 to April 2014, as per an order dated 14-12-1996 passed by the competent authority under Section 7-A of the EPF Act. The petitioner deposited the said amount in installments on 21-3-2017, 24-8-2013,14-9-2017 and 9-10-2017. Subsequently, the petitioner received a composite show cause notice under Section 14-B and 7-Q of the EPF Act, and separate orders were passed under both sections. The petitioner filed a composite appeal against both orders, but the CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow dismissed the appeal against the order passed under Section 7-Q, holding that it was not maintainable. The petitioner challenged this order in the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the order passed under Section 7-Q of the EPF Act is not appealable under Section 7-I of the Act. The Court noted that the language of Section 7-I is plain and unambiguous, and it does not provide for an appeal against an order passed under Section 7-Q. The Court also noted that the Supreme Court has held that an order under Section 7-Q is not appealable. The Court further held that the fact that different benches of the CGIT may have entertained appeals against orders passed under Section 7-Q does not make the impugned order bad, as the orders passed by different benches of the CGIT are not binding on each other or on the High Court.
Issues: Whether an appeal lies against an order passed under Section 7-Q of the EPF Act, which deals with the interest payable by the employer on delayed payment.
Ratio Decidendi: The language of Section 7-I of the EPF Act is plain and unambiguous, and it does not provide for an appeal against an order passed under Section 7-Q. The Supreme Court has also held that an order under Section 7-Q is not appealable. Therefore, the order passed by the CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow, dismissing the appeal against the order passed under Section 7-Q, was correct.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed.
JUDGMENT
1. Heard on the question of admission.
2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 20-12-2019 passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow in Appeal No. 53/2019 by which the appeal filed the petitioner against the order dated 10-10-2019 passed under Section 7-Q of The Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, has been dismissed on the ground that it is not maintainable.
3. According to the petitioner, the necessary facts for disposal of the present petition in short are that the petitioner is a Private Limited Company and is working as an authorized dealers for Vehicles/Cars. The petitioner's establishment is situated at Gwalior, and the office of respondents no. 2 and 3 are also situated in Gwalior and the order dated 10-10-2019 was also passed at Gwalior. Thus it is claimed that, a part of Cause of Action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, therefore, this Court has a jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition against the order dated 20- 12-2019 passed by CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow. It is not disputed by the Petitioner, that Petitioner firm is covered by the provisions of The Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (In short EPF Act). It is claimed that although the petitioner had deposited its Provident Fund Contribution after payment of wages to its employees, and there was no default in deposit of contribution, however, for the pre-discovery period between July 2009 to April 2014, by order dated 14-12-2016, the petitioner was saddled with the liability of Rs. 48,76,050 without there being any identification of the beneficiaries. It is admitted by the Petitioner, that the said amount was deposited by it with the responent no. 3 on 21-3-2017,24-8-2013,14-9-2017 and 9-10-2017 and the order dated 14-12-2016 was never challenged by the petitioner and thus, the order dated 14-12-2016 has attained finality.
4. It is the case of the petitioner, that after the deposit of amount of Rs. 48,76,050, the petitioner was issued a composite show cause notice on 26-9-2019 indicating that an amount of Rs. 48,76,050 is due under Section 14-B and an amount of Rs. 31,13,873 is due under Section 7-Q of EPF Act, and thus in all an amount of Rs. 79,89,923 was shown to be outstanding against the petitioner under Section 14B and 7-Q of EPF Act. Along with the show cause notice, a calculation sheet was also supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner filed his response to the show cause notice.
5. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (C-II), (Damages), Regional Office, Gwalior by order dated 10-10-2019 passed in PF/RO/GWL/MP/15995/C-II/1327 imposed the damages of Rs. 48,76, 050 under Section 14-B of EPF Act, and by order dated 10-10-2019 passed in PF/RO/GWL/MP/15995/C-II/1328, levied the interest of Rs. 31,13,973 under Section 7-Q of EPF Act.
6. Since a composite Show Cause Notice was issued, and a joint inquiry was conducted, therefore, the petitioner filed a composite appeal under Section 7-I of EPF Act against the aforementioned two orders dated 10-10-2019.
7. It is submitted that by the impugned order dated 20-12-2019, the CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow passed in Appeal No. 53/2019 held that although the appeal filed against the order dated 10-10-2019 passed under Section 14-B of EPF Act is maintainable, however, the appeal filed against the order dated 10-10-2019 passed under Section 7-Q of EPF Act has been dismissed as nonmaintainable by observing as under :
' .... and held not maintainable as regards to the order passed u/s 7-Q of the Act. "
8. It is submitted that the present petition has been filed challenging the dismissal of the appeal filed against the order dated 10-10-2019 passed under Section 7-Q of the EPF Act.
9. Challenging the impugned order dated 20-12-2019, it is submitted that different benches of CGIT have held that the appeal filed against the or
Arcot Textile Mills Limited vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and others
C.I.T., A.P. vs. Ashoka Engg. Co.
Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh vs. M/s. Popular Trading Company
Gwalior Rayons Co. Ltd. vs. Custodian of Vested Forests
K.V. Balan and another vs. Sivagiri Sree Narayana Dharma Sanghom Trust and others
Karnataka Rare Earth vs. Deptt. of Mines & Geology
Maharashtra State Co-operative Bank Limited vs. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and others
Mohd. Shahabuddin vs. State of Bihar
Organo Chemical Industries vs. Union of India
P.S. Sathappan vs. Andhra Bank Ltd.
Shree Vishal Printers Ltd. vs. Provident Fund Commr.
Smita Subhash Sawant vs. Jagdeeshwari Jagdish Amin
Srikanta Datta Narasimharaja Wodiyar vs. Enforcement Officer, Mysore
State of Jharkhand vs. Govind Singh
Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. vs. State of U.P.
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.