COTTON BLOSSOM (INDIA) PVT. LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

1. Issue notice.

2. Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, CGSC accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.l and Mr. R.R. Rajesh, Advocate accepts notice on behalfof the respondent Nos.[2] and 3. WP(C) No. 1401/2015 ^ 2015:DHC:10957

3. The petitioner in the present petition has submitted that the proceedings under Section 14B and 7Q of the Employee's Provident Fund and Miscellaneous ProvisiOiis Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) were initiated by the respondent No.3 against the petitioner for the period 05/2012 to 10/2013.

4. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner passed an order under Section 14 B and 7Q of the Act against the petitioner. On 04.02.2015, the petitioner preferred the statutory appeal under Section 7(1) ofthe Act against the said order dated 21.01.2015.

5. It is submitted by the petitioner that the respondent No.l i.e. Union of India has not appointed any Presiding Officer of the Appellate Tribunal and the result is that the statutory Appeals are not being heard by Appellate Tribunal.

6. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the EPF Appellate Tribunal is a National Appellate Tribunal and there is only one Appellate Tribunal in the entire Nation. Since the respondent No. 1 has failed to appoint the Presiding Officer of the statutory Appellate Tribunal, a writ petition bearing WP(C) No. 8429/2014 was filed by the Bar Association of the Tribunal before this couit which is listed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this court for 18^'^ February, 2015.

7. It is submitted that there is every apprehension to the petitioner that respondent Nos. 2 & 3 may initiate coercive actions for recovery of the amounts assessed by the Assistant Commissioner.

8. It is submitted that the act of respondent No.l, by not appointing the Presiding Officer of the only Appellate Tribunal, amounts to denial of WFfCJ No. 1401/2015 ^of[4] > lawful legal rights of statutoiy Appeal to the petitioner and it is prayed that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 be restrainedfrom taking any coercive measure against the petitioner in pursuance to the impugned order till the pendency of the statutory appeal bearing ATA No. 128(13)72015 filed before the statutory Appellate Tribunal.

9. It is also submitted that on earlier occasions also, the same situation had arisen and in the case of Arihant Threads Ltd Vs. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 333/2004, a Division Benchof Punjab and Haryana High Court had passed an order directing all the authorities to maintain status quo in such matters where the Chair of the Appellate Tribunal is lying bare and vacant. The relevant portion of thejudgment is reproduced hereunder:if such appeals are filed and proof thereof is shown to the Recovery Officer, then said officer would not affect recoveiy of the demand issued under Section 7-A ofthe Act till decision ofthe stay application. " "7/7 comity to the different orders passed byvarious Benches of this Court and to avoid unnecessary prejudice to the Petitioner resulting from, inaction on the part of the Union for such a considerable period, it is in the interest ofjustice to restrain the Respondents from taking any coercive steps to recover the amount which is the subject matter of these writ petitions. "

10. It is also contended that the ratio ofthe said order has been followed by this court in the matter ofElbee Services Vs. Union ofIndia, WP(C) NO. 10369/2004.

11. It is not disputed on behalf ot the respondent no.l that Presiding Officer ofthe statutoi[7] Tribunal has not yet been appointed by it. This fact WP(C) No. 1401/2015 Page 3 of[4] is also not disputed on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 and 3. It is also admittedthat the petitionerhas filed the statutory Appeal and it could not be heard for the absence ofthe Presiding Officer of Appellate Tribunal.

12. In view of Section 7(1) of Employee's Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952, it is a statutory right of the petitioner to file an Appeal before the Tribunal.

13. Unfortunately, his appeal could not be heard since the Tribunal is not headed by itsPresiding Officer and the Government has failed to appoint the Presiding Officer. The statutory right ofthe petitioner needs tobeprotected.

14. As brought to my notice by the petitioner, in the earlier petitions mentioned above, this right of the petitioner in these petitions, on the same facts and circumstances, had been protected.

15. In view ofthe ratio ofthe above-mentioned judgments, I hereby direct the respondent nos. 2 and 3 not to take any coercive measure pursuant to the impugned order till statutory appeal is being heard by the Tribunal.