$~11

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of decision: 16^th July, 2021

+

W.P.(C) 6630/2021 & CM APPLs. 20822/2021, 20823/2021

M/S B.L. KASHYAP AND SONS LTD.

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. A.K. Singla, Sr. Advocate with

Mr. S.K. Khanna, Mr. H.D. Sharma &

Mr. Akshit Sachdeva, Advocates.

versus

CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT

FUND & ANR.

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate for

EPFO.

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1. This hearing has been done through video conferencing.

CM APPL.20823/2021 (for exemption)

2.

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of.

W.P.(C) 6630/2021 & CM APPL.20822/2021 (for stay)

3.

The present petition has been filed challenging order dated 28^th April,

2021 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court (hereinafter referred as “CGIT”). By the said order, the levy of

interest and imposition of damages under Sections 7Q and 14B of the

Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952

(hereinafter, “Act”) have both been upheld by the CGIT.

4.

Insofar as the order under Section 7Q of the Act is concerned, the

2021:DHC:2084

CGIT has held that the same is not appealable as two separate orders under

Sections 14B and 7Q of the Act have been passed. Insofar as the appeal qua

the imposition of damages under Section 14B of the Act is concerned, the

CGIT has upheld the imposition of damages on the ground that mens rea has

been established.

5.

Mr. A.K. Singla, ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has

made two submissions. Firstly, he submits that in terms of the judgment of

the Supreme Court in Arcot Textile Mills Ltd. v. RPFC & Ors., (2013) 16

SCC 1, whenever a composite order is passed by the authority under

Sections 7Q and 14B of the Act, the same would be appealable before the

CGIT. In the present case, the show cause notice dated 26^th June, 2018 is the

same notice in respect of both interest and damages. Written submissions

were also common. Even the order which has been passed was

communicated by a common covering letter. Both orders bear the same

number i.e., No.4841 and are dated 17^th September, 2018. Ld. counsel

further submits that the text of both these orders is also the same and

therefore, they should be treated as a composite order though they may be

shown to be separate orders. Thus, the CGIT is incorrect in holding that the

orders would not be appealable.

6.

Secondly, his submission is that the imposition of damages is also not

valid inasmuch as, as per the notification, the authority which has imposed

the damages does not have the power to do so. According to ld. Sr. counsel,

the power to levy damages and order recovery are two distinct powers which

have been conferred under the Act. Unless there is a specific notification for

each of the issues, the authority cannot exercise the said power.

7.

On behalf of the department, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, ld. Counsel submits

2021:DHC:2084

that in this case, the Petitioner is a chronic defaulter and was involved in

various fraudulent activities. In fact, there are criminal complaints pending

against the Petitioner. He further submits that the computation chart would

show that the Petitioner is a frequent defaulter and the number of defaults

are several in number and huge amounts are involved. He thus submits that

he would like to file a reply to this petition and place on record relevant

documents.

8.

The Court has perused the impugned order. Insofar as the arguments

qua the appealable nature of an order passed under Section 7Q of the Act is

concerned, there is no doubt that the orders, though passed separately, bear

the same number and all the proceedings before the authority have been

common, commencing from the show cause notice till the final order.

9.

Thus, this Court is of the opinion