JUDGMENT :

Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

Heard Mr.P.Shanker Rao Patil, learned counsel for the appellant and Dr. B.Manoj Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for Employment Provident Fund Organization appearing for the respondent- Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II.

2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 18.08.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of W.P.No.32932 of 2022 filed by the appellant as the petitioner.

3. It may be mentioned that two orders were passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, both dated 25.07.2022.

4. First one is an order under Section 14-B of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. A perusal of the said order would go to show that appellant was required to pay Employees Provident Fund (EPF) contributions within 15 days, but failed to make such payment. Payments were made belatedly. Summons were issued under Section 14B of the Act for payment of penal damages for belated remittance of the EPF contributions for the period from October, 2017 to October, 2021. After hearing the matter, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner passed the order calling upon the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.72,25,403/-towards damages for the aforesaid period.

5. The second order was passed under Section 7Q of the Act on the ground that the employer (appellant) was liable to pay interest for delayed payment of EPF contributions. After hearing the matter, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner directed the appellant to pay Rs.46,13,988/- towards interest for the delayed payment of EPF Contributions for the period from October, 2017 to October, 2021.

6. Learned Single Judge, on thorough consideration of all aspects of the matter, disposed of the Writ Petition in the following manner:-

Perusal of the record would also reveal that though the 2nd respondent had initiated common enquiry he had passed different orders vide No.TS/RO/HYD-I/63671/PD.C-IV/T-14B/2022/302 and TS/RO/HYD-I/63671/PD.C-IV/T-1/7Q/2022 /303 both dated 25.07.2022. Therefore, the 2nd respondent had mentioned the different proceeding Nos. i.e., ‘302’ and ‘303’. Against the order under Section 7-Q of the Act, no Appeal lies. However, against order passed under Section 14-B of the Act, Appeal lies under Section 7-I of the Act. However, referring to Section 7-O of the Act, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that any Appeal filed under Section 7-I of the Act challenging the order passed under Section 14-B of the Act, there is no need for the petitioner to deposit 75% of the demanded amount. According to him, if the Appeal is filed under Section 7-I of the Act challenging the order passed under Section 7-Q of the Act, petitioner has to deposit 75% of the demanded amount.

Further, as stated above, no Appeal lies against the order passed under Section 7-Q of the Act. Therefore, the question of filing an Appeal against the said order by the petitioner shall not arise.

Therefore, in view of the aforesaid discussion, this Writ Petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner herein to pursue the Appeal filed vide ATA.User.No.42322 dated 16.08.2022 filed before Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal along with Waiver and Stay application. Till Waiver application and Stay application filed by the petitioner is decided by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, the 2nd respondent is directed no to take further steps pursuant to order issued vide No.TS/RO/HYD-I/63671/PD.C-IV/T-1/14B/2022/302 dated 25.07.2022 on condition of petitioner depositing 30% of the amount demanded in the said order within four weeks from today. If the petitioner fails to deposit the said amount within the aforesaid period, liberty is granted to the respondent to take steps in accordance with law. Liberty is also granted to the petitioner to take appropriate steps challenging the order issued vide No. TS/RO/HYD-I/63671/PD.C-IV/T-1/7Q/2022/303 dated 25.07.2022 passed under Section 7-Q of the Act. No order as to cos