Order On Board

23.02.2022

1. The petitioner/Guru Ghasidas Vishwavidyalaya (for short “the University”) has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging legality and validity of the order dated 30.12.2021 (Annexure P/1) passed under Section 7-A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short “the Act, 1952”) assessing the dues amount to Rs. 1,37,43,353/- for the period from 01/2009 to 08/2018, order dated 31.12.2021 (Annexure P/2) under Section 7-Q of the Act, 1952 by which respondent No. 2/Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization, District Office, Bilaspur has assessed the interest amount of Rs. 36,92,417/-. The petitioner has also assailed the order dated 18.01.2022 (Annexure P/3) & 19.01.2022 (Annexure P/4) issued by respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 4-Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Lodhipara, Koni, Bilaspur (C.G.) under Section 8F of the Act, 1952, by which, entire amount of Rs. 1,37,43,353/- & Rs. 60,28,875/- have been recovered from bank account of the University.

2. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a Central University constituted under the Central Universities Act, 2009. The record of the case would demonstrate that the respondent-Employees' Provident Fund Organization has initiated proceedings for assessment of dues for the period from 01/2009 to 08/2018. The Employees' Provident Fund Organization/ Department has issued notices for hearing and on the basis of record available with the department, respondent No. 2 has assessed the dues under Section 7-A of the Act, 1952 to the tune of Rs. 1,37,43,353/- vide its order dated 30.12.2021 (Annexure P/1) and thereafter he has issued another order on 31.12.2021 (Annexure P/2) under Section 7-Q of the Act, 1952 assessing the dues to the tune of Rs. 36,92,417/-. Thereafter, he has issued order on 18.01.2022 (Annexure P/3) and 19.01.2022 (Annexure P/4) to the Banker to pay the dues of a defaulter as per provisions of Section 8F of the Act, 1952. These orders have been assailed by the petitioner by filing this writ petition.

3. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner would further submit that impugned orders have been passed without waiting for giving any opportunity to the petitioner to file statutory appeal under Section 7-I of the Act, 1952. He would further submit that limitation for filing of the appeal is 60 days and thereafter as per the Employees' Provident Fund Tribunal Rules, 1997, further 60 days can be extended by the tribunal, therefore, it is incumbent on the part of the respondent organization to wait atleast upto 60 days before exhausting such hard steps even without following the procedure as prescribed under the Act, 1952. He would further submit that seizure of the bank account is in contravention of Section 8F of the Act and against the law laid down by Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Ferro Concrete Construction (India) Ltd. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, M.P. & others1 and also the judgment passed by Hon’ble High Court Delhi in Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. Vs. Employees Provident Fund Organization & others2 and Vijaya Bank Vs. EPFO3 and would pray for quashing of the impugned orders. The petitioner by way of interim relief has also sought for stay of the impugned orders and restitution by returning the entire amount which has been recovered by the respondent under duress.

4. The matter was listed on 18.02.2022, thereafter adjourned to

22.02.2022, on that day, this Court has directed respondent No. 1/Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Raipur and respondent No. 2/Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Bilaspur to appear before this Court and in pursuance of the order passed by this Court, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I & Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II have appeared to assist this Court for deciding the lis between the parties. Respondents No. 4/Bank is a ba