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.

JUDGMENT :

Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.

1. The Writ Appeal arises out of order dated 04.02.2025 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.2930 of2025 filed by the respondent/writ petitioner.

2. The Writ Petition was filed by the respondent for a Writ of Mandamus for setting aside the order dated 14.11.2024 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court at Hyderabad in I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2024 in EPF Appeal No.43 of 2024 filed by the respondent/writ petitioner. The EPF Appeal was preferred by the respondent challenging the order dated 08.08.2024 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. The respondent filed I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2024 seeking waiver of the pre-deposit condition and also for stay of operation of the order dated 08.08.2024 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner.

3. The appellants claim to be aggrieved by the impugned order dated 04.02.2025 by which the order dated 14.11.2024 passed by the appellant No.3-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Hyderabad, was partly modified and the writ petitioner was directed to remit 15% of the determined amount under section 7A of The Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (‘1952 Act’) within four weeks from the date of the order. The respondent No.3 (the appellant No.3 herein) was also directed to dispose of the EPF Appeal as expeditiously as possible till disposal of the EPF Appeal.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the respondent/writ petitioner have argued on the maintainability of the Writ Appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner has urged that the appellants, who are Statutory Authorities under the 1952 Act, cannot maintain the present Appeal.

6. We have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and considered the import of the order passed by the appellant No.3 dated 14.11.2024 which led to filing of the Writ Petition which in turn culminated in the impugned order.

7. We first need to clarify the facts which are relevant to the issue of maintainability.

(i) The writ petitioner is the ‘Employer’ of an Establishment as defined under section 2(e) of the 1952 Act. Proceedings were initiated against the writ petitioner under section 7A by way of a notice dated 25.05.2022 determining the dues payable by the writ petitioner for the period from April, 2021 to November, 2021 and wages amounting to Rs.1,34,961/- as balance payable by the writ petitioner. Appellant No.1/The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner under section 7A of the 1952 Act determined that the writ petitioner/Employer should pay the balance amount of Rs.52,51,686/- for the specified period vide an order dated 08.08.2024. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner directed the writ petitioner/Employer of the Establishment to pay the aforesaid amount within 15 days from receipt of the order.

(ii) The writ petitioner challenged the said order dated 08.08.2024 before the respondent No.3 by way of an Appeal i.e., EPF Appeal No.43 of 2024 under Section 7 -I of the 1952 Act. In the said appeal, the writ petitioner filed I.A.Nos.1 and 2 for waiver of the pre-deposit condition under section 7-O and also for stay of the operation of the order dated 08.08.2024 till disposal of the Appeal. The appellant No.3 herein disposed of the said IAs by an order dated 14.11.2024 holding that the Appeal would be admitted subject to remittance of 30% of the determined amount under section 7A of the 1952 Act within six weeks upon submission on record of the proof of remittance. The operation of the order dated 08.08.2024 was directed to be su