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.

ORDER :

Pulla Karthik, J.

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:

“…. to issue a writ, order or direction more in the nature of a certiorari and to call for records relating to the order passed by the 2^nd respondent i.e, the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad in IA No 1 & 2 in EPF Appeal No.41 of 2024 dated 01/11/2024 and quash and set aside the said order, as the same is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and in violation to the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and grant such other relief or relief’s as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

2) Heard Mr. C.Niranjan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. T.Bala Jayasree, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for respondent No.1, and Sri G.Venkateshwarlu, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for respondent No.2.

3) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent has initiated proceedings under Section 7A(1)(b) of Employees’ Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (in short ‘1952 Act’) for the period from April 2017 to October 2019 on the ground that EPF contributions are to be paid without restricting it to the employees salary limit of Rs.15,000/- per month and without considering any of the objections raised by the petitioner, the first respondent has passed an order dated 26.11.2020 under Section 7A of the Act determining the PF contribution dues payable by the petitioner as Rs.14,86,08,946/- for the said period. Despite the financial constraints, the petitioner Company has paid the total amounts towards contributions by taking few instalments and the said amount has also been accepted by respondent No.1 without any protest and the Company is also regularly paying its current provident fund contributions well in time in accordance with the provisions of the law. However, in view of some delay in depositing the EPF contributions, respondent No.1 has issued a notice dated 09.10.2023 proposing to claim damages for the period January, 2011, to July, 2021, after a lapse of 12 years. Further, without giving due consideration to any of the submissions of the petitioner and without considering the sickness and other circumstances including Corporate Insolvency Process carried out under the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and in a mechanical manner, respondent No.1 had passed the order dated 16.07.2024 under Section 14B of the 1952 Act directing the petitioner to pay Rs.13,28,40,598/- as damages for the period from January, 2011, to July, 2021. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the statutory appeal before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad, under Section 7-I of the 1952 Act raising several grounds and mainly contending that the petitioner is not liable to pay any damages and also filed two petitions in the said appeal seeking to waive the condition of pre-deposit and for suspension of the order dated 16.07.2024. However, without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has passed the order dated 01.11.2024 directing the petitioner to deposit 20% of the amount mentioned in the order dated 16.07.2024. Learned counsel has contended that the Tribunal failed to consider the issues relating to the financial sickness and endeavors to revive the Company through CIRP, which is the basic criteria for imposing the condition and thereby mechanically ordered to pre-deposit 20% of the determined amount. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal is contrary to the material available on record and not in ac