Full Text
Translation output
2015:DHC:11516 The brief facts of the case as set out in the petition are that the petitioner is aGovernment Company as per the provisions ofthe Companies
Act, 1956 with 90% of its share being held by the Government. The petitioner is engaged in civil Engineering contracting and project management, having its registered office at NBCC House, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. Order dated 29.07.2011/08.08.2011 under Section 7A of the
Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, (hereinafter referred to as 'theAct') was passed by Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner and thereby the petitioner was directed to pay damages under Section 14B and interest under Section 7Q ofthe Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner preferred an appeal being ATA No.663(l1)2011 before the Employees
Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, Delhi. The petitioner also moved an application under Section 151 CPC for grant ofstay before this Court.
Vide order dated 22,09.2011, Employees Provident Fund Appellate
Tribunal stayed operation of the order dated 29.07.2011 subject to depositing the bank guarantee equivalent to 30% of the determined amount of Rs.1,52,49,131/- (Rupees One Crore Fifty Two Lakhs Forty Nine
Thousand One Hundred and Thirty One). The petitioner deposited the bank guarantee dated 26.02.2011 for Rs.45,75,000/-(Rupees Forty Five Lakhs
Seventy Five Thousand). Itis also submitted on behalfofthe petitioner that the said appeal was dismissed in default on 18.11.2014.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner moved an application under Rule 15(2) of the Employees Provident Fund
Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997 for restoration ofthe appeal and
Page 2 of3 an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed on
09.01.2015. However, these applications are pending as there is no
Presiding Officer, in the E.P.F. Appellate Tribunal to hear the petitioner.
Consequently, the application for restoration of the appeal and condonation of delay could not be heard.
Mr. R.C.Chawla, Advocate appearing for the respondent No.l does not disputethe fact that there is no Presiding Officer in the E.P.F. Appellate
Tribunal.
During the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the bank guarantee to the tune of 30% of the determined amount furnished by the petitioner has already been encashed.
Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties, it is directed that untilthe application for restoration of appeal is disposed of by the EPF Appellate Tribunal, no coercive steps be taken by the respondent to recover the remaining amount. It is expected that the , Tribunal shallhear and dispose of the application for restoration of appeal as expeditiously as possible.
With the aforesaid observations, the petitionstands disposed of
CM 680/2015rstav^ The application is dismissed as infructuous.
JANUARY 14, 2015/'sn' A e $-37 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 404/2015
NATIONAL BUILDINGS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LIMITED
Through: None.
Act, 1956 with 90% of its share being held by the Government. The petitioner is engaged in civil Engineering contracting and project management, having its registered office at NBCC House, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. Order dated 29.07.2011/08.08.2011 under Section 7A of the
Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, (hereinafter referred to as 'theAct') was passed by Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner and thereby the petitioner was directed to pay damages under Section 14B and interest under Section 7Q ofthe Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner preferred an appeal being ATA No.663(l1)2011 before the Employees
Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, Delhi. The petitioner also moved an application under Section 151 CPC for grant ofstay before this Court.
Vide order dated 22,09.2011, Employees Provident Fund Appellate
Tribunal stayed operation of the order dated 29.07.2011 subject to depositing the bank guarantee equivalent to 30% of the determined amount of Rs.1,52,49,131/- (Rupees One Crore Fifty Two Lakhs Forty Nine
Thousand One Hundred and Thirty One). The petitioner deposited the bank guarantee dated 26.02.2011 for Rs.45,75,000/-(Rupees Forty Five Lakhs
Seventy Five Thousand). Itis also submitted on behalfofthe petitioner that the said appeal was dismissed in default on 18.11.2014.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner moved an application under Rule 15(2) of the Employees Provident Fund
Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997 for restoration ofthe appeal and
Page 2 of3 an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed on
09.01.2015. However, these applications are pending as there is no
Presiding Officer, in the E.P.F. Appellate Tribunal to hear the petitioner.
Consequently, the application for restoration of the appeal and condonation of delay could not be heard.
Mr. R.C.Chawla, Advocate appearing for the respondent No.l does not disputethe fact that there is no Presiding Officer in the E.P.F. Appellate
Tribunal.
During the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the bank guarantee to the tune of 30% of the determined amount furnished by the petitioner has already been encashed.
Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties, it is directed that untilthe application for restoration of appeal is disposed of by the EPF Appellate Tribunal, no coercive steps be taken by the respondent to recover the remaining amount. It is expected that the , Tribunal shallhear and dispose of the application for restoration of appeal as expeditiously as possible.
With the aforesaid observations, the petitionstands disposed of
CM 680/2015rstav^ The application is dismissed as infructuous.
JANUARY 14, 2015/'sn' A e $-37 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 404/2015
NATIONAL BUILDINGS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LIMITED
Through: None.
VERSUS
THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER & ORS.
Through: None.
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.P.VAISH
27.01.2015 . Petitioner Respondents In terms of Notification No.ll/Genl/DHC dated 21.01.2015, the matter is taken up today as 23''* January, 2015 was declared holiday.
This matter has been listed pursuant to office note wherein ithas been mentioned that due to typographical mistake the case number has been written as 'W.P.(C) 382/2015' instead of'W.P. (C) 404/2015' in order dated
14.01.2015. Accordingly, 'W.P.(C) 382/2015' mentioned in order dated
14.01.2015 be read as 'W.P.(C) No.404/2015'. The error stands corrected.
JANUARY 27, 2015 hs V.P.VAISH, J
27.01.2015 . Petitioner Respondents In terms of Notification No.ll/Genl/DHC dated 21.01.2015, the matter is taken up today as 23''* January, 2015 was declared holiday.
This matter has been listed pursuant to office note wherein ithas been mentioned that due to typographical mistake the case number has been written as 'W.P.(C) 382/2015' instead of'W.P. (C) 404/2015' in order dated
14.01.2015. Accordingly, 'W.P.(C) 382/2015' mentioned in order dated
14.01.2015 be read as 'W.P.(C) No.404/2015'. The error stands corrected.
JANUARY 27, 2015 hs V.P.VAISH, J
JUDGMENT