Case Law Details
Patton Logistics Pvt Ltd Vs Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal And Another (Allahabad High Court)
Allahabad High Court recently dismissed a petition filed by Patton Logistics Pvt Ltd, challenging an order passed by the Employees’ Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal, through its decision dated January 19, 2024, had granted a stay on the damages imposed under Sections 14B and 7Q of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The stay was conditioned on the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs. 3,00,000 under Section 14B and Rs. 1,00,000 under Section 7Q, as per the order issued by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Varanasi, which had previously directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 10,01,517 and Rs. 5,54,805, respectively.
The petitioner argued that there was no need for a pre-deposit in appeals filed under Section 7-I of the Act. They referred to a previous judgment where it was held that the requirement of pre-deposit applied only in appeals under Section 7A. Despite this, the Allahabad High Court found that the Appellate Tribunal’s order was an interim order conditional on the deposit, and not a permanent requirement for pre-deposit. The court reasoned that the Tribunal had merely issued an interlocutory order after admitting the appeal, thus maintaining its authority to impose such conditions.
The petitioner’s request for the court to intervene and quash the condition imposed by the Appellate Tribunal was not accepted. The court noted that there was no significant error or perversity in the interim order that would justify overturning it. The court emphasized that the condition set by the Tribunal was within its discretion and did not warrant judicial intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution. As a result, the petition was dismissed, and the interim order passed by the EPF Appellate Tribunal stood.
This judgment reaffirms the EPF Appellate Tribunal’s power to stay orders and impose conditions during the pendency of appeals, emphasizing its authority to ensure compliance with the statutory provisions while the appeal is under consideration.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
This writ petition has been filed challenging an order dated 19.01.2024 passed by the Presiding Officer, Employees’ Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, Kanpur Nagar in Appeal No. 49 of 2023 granting stay of damages against the orders passed under Section 14B and 7Q of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short, ‘the Act of 1952’), awarding damages and interest. By the said order, the Tribunal has admitted the appeal to hearing and granted interim stay of operation of the order dated 19.04.2024 passed under Section 14B and 7Q by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Varanasi on condition that the petitioner do deposit a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- under Section 14B and a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- under Section 7Q of the Act of 1952. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Varanasi has ordered the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 10,01,517/- under Section 14B of the Act of 1952 and Rs. 5,54,805/- under Section 7Q of the said Act.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner has been at pains to urge before us that there is no requirement of pre-deposit in an appeal preferred under Section 7-I of the Act of 1952. The requirement of pre-deposit is there in a case, where the appeal under Section 7A is filed. He has drawn the attention of the Court to the holding of my esteemed Brother S.D. Singh in Writ-C No. 33257 of 2021, decided on 19.01.2022, wherein it has been held:
“7. What naturally flows from the above is that at present the Tribunal has erred in requiring the petitioner to pre-deposit the amount of damages and interest. It is clear that no part of the damages may have been required to be pre-deposited to maintain the appeal filed by the petitioner. The maintainability of the appeal against interest demand is left open to be considered by the Tribunal, on its own reasoning.”
Upon hearing learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jagdish Pathak, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2, this Court is afraid that the petitioner’s contention cannot be accepted.
A perusal of the impugned order passed by the Appellate Tribunal does not show that the Tribunal have required the petitioner to pre-deposit any sum of money. The Tribunal have passed an interim order after admitting the appeal, subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits a certain sum of money as directed. It is only a conditional stay order. In our opinion, the said order is absolutely interlocutory and there is no such perversity in the condition imposed as may require this Court to interfere with it in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Accordingly, this petition fails and is dismissed, summarily.
Author Bio
