The court confirmed that a conditional deposit for stay in appeals under Section 14B is permissible while reiterating no precondition exists under Section 7I.

O R D E R

The petitioner, a retailer in Medicals, running more than

50 medical shops across the State is registered under the Companies Act, 1956. Therefore, the petitioner’s Company comes under the purview of Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter called Act) and they have paid EPF contribution until 2013. Thereafter, they have failed to remit EPF contribution, due to financial crisis and also there was some delay in payment of EPF contribution for the subsequent years. Therefore, the respondent EPF authority has initiated proceedings under Section 14B of the Act, levying damages on the petitioner, to the tune of Rs.16,68,037/-, by an order, dated 04.07.2018. The order of EPF authority has been challenged by the petitioner, before the EPF Tribunal in EPFA No.650 of 2018, under Section 7(I) of the Act.

Along with the appeal, the petitioner has also moved an application seeking interim stay. The Tribunal, while entertaining the appeal filed by the writ petitioner has granted an order of interim stay on conditional deposit of 50% of the dues determined by the respondent, by its order, dated 02.08.2019. Challenging the said conditional order, this writ petition was filed by the petitioner in the year 2019 that the Appellate Tribunal has entertained the appeal by imposing a precondition order of deposit.

2.Today(01.09.2025), when this writ petition is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent EPF Authority submits that this issue has already been decided by this Court in WP(MD) No.19220 of 2023, dated 18.10.2024 that the conditional order passed by the Appellate Tribunal to deposit some portion of the dues determined by the EPF Authority is a condition for grant of interim stay alone and it cannot be treated as a precondition for entertaining the appeal. The relevant paragraphs from the above order is extracted as under:-

''9.In fact this Court has set aside a similar conditional order by following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Curt in Shiv Herbal Research Laboratory vs the Assistant P.F. Commissioner . The case in Shiv Herbal Research Laboratory vs the Assistant P.F. Commissioner , before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, is an appeal preferred as against similar conditional order passed by the Bombay High Court in an appeal, which was filed as against the order passed under Section 14-B of the Act. The Bombay High Court while entertaining the appeal, had directed the petitioner therein to deposit a sum of 50% of the damages imposed under Section 14-B of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while entertaining the civil appeal has passed an interim order directing the appellant therein to deposit a sum of 25%, instead of 50% as directed the appellate tribunal and the High Court. Later the same was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the petitioner therein has to deposit a sum of 25% of the damages imposed on them. The relevant portion of the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is extracted as under:

“3. Apart from the above, the provision for preferring an appeal in respect of an order Under Section 14B is contained in Section 7-I of the above Act which provides for appeals to the Tribunal, inter alia against orders passed Under Section 14-B . Subsection (2) of Section 7-I indicates that every appeal Under Sub-section (1) shall be filed in such form and manner, within such time and be accompanied by such fees, as may be prescribed. There is nothing to indicate that any part of the amount awarded Under was required to be deposited at the time of filing of the appeal.

4. When specific provision has been made with regard to appeals Under Section 7A and Under Section 7-O , a definite provision has been indicated for deposit of 75% of the awarded amount and there is no such provision in Section 7-I , we