LPA No.880/2015 & conn.matters Page 1 of 9

$~1 to 4

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Date of Decision : December 16, 2015

+

LPA 880/2015

JAI BALAJI SECURITY SERVICES (REGD.)

..... Appellant

Represented by:

Mr.Manish Malhotra, Advocate

versus

A.P.F.C.DELHI (NORTH)

..... Respondent

Represented by:

Mr.Keshav Mohan, Advocate with

Ms.Anindita Barman, Advocate

LPA 762/2015

CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES

..... Appellant

Represented by:

Mr.Keshav Mohan, Advocate with

Ms.Anindita Barman, Advocate

versus

M/S. BEDI AND BEDI ASSOCIATES (REGD.) ..... Respondent

Represented by:

Mr.S.P.Arora, Advocate with

Mr.Rajiv Arora, Advocate

LPA 848/2015

RAJINDER SINGH

..... Appellant

Represented by:

Mr.Manish Malhotra, Advocate

versus

CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEE & ANR.

..... Respondents

Represented by:

Mr.Keshav Mohan, Advocate with

Ms.Anindita Barman, Advocate

LPA 868/2015

CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES EPFO

..... Appellant

LPA No.880/2015 & conn.matters Page 2 of 9

Represented by:

Mr.R.C.Chawla, Advocate with

Ms.Madhur Sachdeva, Advocate

versus

M/S.EVERSHINE HOUSEKEEPING

SERVICES (REGD.)

..... Respondent

Represented by:

Mr.S.P.Arora, Advocate with

Mr.Rajiv Arora, Advocate

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)

CM No.29072/2015 in LPA No.868/2015

For the reasons stated in the application delay of 24 days in filing the

appeal is condoned.

LPA Nos.880/2015, 762/2015, 848/2015 & 868/2015

1.

The above captioned four appeals are being disposed of by a

composite order because a common question of law arises for consideration

in the appeals. The appellants of LPA No.880/2015 had challenged an order

passed under Section 14-B and Section 7-Q of the Employees Provident

Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the

Act) before the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal. The order

levied damages for late deposit of the provident fund dues and raised a

demand towards interest. On an application filed for stay of the impugned

demand, vide order dated September 21, 2015 the Appellate Tribunal

directed that not more than 50% of the amount can be recovered. Said order

was challenged by way of a writ petition which has been dismissed vide

impugned order dated October 15, 2015.

2.

Challenge in LPA No.762/2015 by the Central Board of Trustees is to

an order dated September 07, 2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in a

LPA No.880/2015 & conn.matters Page 3 of 9

writ petition filed by the respondent of said appeal, laying a challenge to an

order dated August 18, 2015 passed by the Employees Provident Fund

Appellate Tribunal staying operation of an order levying damages under

Section 14-B of the Act upon 50% of the amount raised in the demand being

deposited. The learned Single Judge has held that the appeal had to be heard

without insisting on any deposit because the embargo put by Section 7-O of

the Act to an appeal being entertained only after 75% of the demand raised

was deposited was confined to orders passed under Section 7-A of the Act.

3.

Challenge by the appellant of LPA No.848/2015 is to an order dated

October 14, 2015 passed by the learned Single Judge restraining the

respondent of the appeal to recover more than 30% of the amount assessed

under Section 14-B and Section 7-Q of the Act. We note that vide order

dated October 08, 2015, the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal

had restrained the respondent of the said appeal to recover more than 30% of

the assessed amount.

4.

Challenge in LPA No.868/2015 is to an order dated August 28, 2015

passed by the learned Single Judge setting aside the order dated Jul