ORDER

This writ petition is filed as against the interim order dated

06.06.2023 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Chennai / Appellate Tribunal under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provident Funds Act [herein after shall be referred to as 'the Act'] in EPFA No.69 of 2023.

2.The petitioner, a private educational institution, had failed to pay the contribution towards the Employees Provident Fund, for which the respondent has initiated proceedings under Section 14-B as well as 7-Q of the Act and imposed damages by an order dated 07.02.2023. Challenging the damages, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate Tribunal and also moved an application for stay. The appellate Tribunal granted interim stay, however with a condition directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- before the respondent and the said conditional order is challenged in this writ petition.

3.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that this appeal is filed under Section 7-I of the Act as against the damages levied under Section 14-B of the Act. Section 7-O of the Act mandates pre-deposit for entertaining an appeal filed against the determination made under Section 7-A of the Act. No such pre-deposit is contemplated for the appeals filed against the damages levied under Section 14-B of the Act. While so the appellate Tribunal has passed this conditional order to deposit a portion of the damages amount, which would amount to conditional order for pre-deposit.

4.The learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shiv Herbal Research Laboratory Vs the Assistant P.F. Commissioner (Civil Appeal No.3001 of 2010, dated 05.04.2010). The learned Counsel has also relied on the orders passed by this Court in Sri Naga Nanthana Mils Ltd Vs The Presiding Officer, EPF Appellate Tribunal, reported in (2013) 5 LLN 667 and in M/s.Madhuranthagam Agricultural Producers Co-Operative Marketing Society Ltd Vs Regional Provident Fund commissioner, Chennai [WP.No.22860 of 2023 dated 03.08.2023], wherein, this Court by referring to the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shiv Herbal Research Laboratory's case, has passed orders, setting aside similar conditional order passed by the appellate authority that the appellate authority cannot insist for pre-deposit for entertaining the appeal.

5.The learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the order passed by the appellate Tribunal is not an order for pre-deposit to entertain the appeal as projected by the petitioner and it is only a conditional order for grant of stay. The petitioner has moved an application for grant of stay for the operation of the orders passed under Section 14-B, otherwise the authority would recover the same. Mere pendency of appeal would not prohibit the competent authority to recover the damages. Therefore the petitioner along with his appeal moved an application for stay and the tribunal while exercising its discretionary power granted an interim order with certain condition. This cannot be termed as an order directing for pre-deposit for entertaining the appeal.

6.The learned Counsel for the respondent has also relied on the judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in Jai Balaji Security Services (Regd.) Vs A.P.F.C. Delhi (North) reported in (2015 SCC OnLine Del 14099) and the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Center for Entrepreneurship Development through its Secretary Johon Eppon Vs Regional Provident Commissioner reported in

2024 SCC OnLine MP 2528.

7.This Court considered the rival submissions made and perused the materials placed on record.

8.The petitioner company has failed to pay the EPF contribution in time and therefore, the respondent has levied damages under Section

14-B of the Act. Challenging this order the petitioner company filed an appeal before the appellate Tribunal under Section 7-I of the Act. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counse