Full Text
Translation output
\
70L5.09.20ll
Present: Ms. Seema Jain with Mr. Dushyant K. Mahant and Ms. Savita Singh for the petitioner.
Mr. Vikas Kumar for the respondent. fW.P.(C\
No. 4889 66,1010
By this petition filed under Arlicle 2261227 of the
Constitution of India the petitioner seeks directions to direct the
Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal to restore the appeal filed by the petitioner and to give opportunity to the petitioner to prove its case.
The grievance raised by the petitioner in the present petition is that a demand of Rs. 69,65,008 was raised by the
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner I, Regional Office, Kolkata against the petitioner on account of default committed by the petitioner in depositing provident fund contribution for the periodJuly, 1988 to December, 200L and on the said demand further interest of Rs. 22,33,L561- was also imposed as an interest. The said order of the Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner was challenged by the petitioner in an appeal NO. 515(15) of 2007 filed by the petitioner under Section 7-I of the
{
2011:DHC:16416
*
Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, L952 and along with the said appeal the petitioner had also filed an application to seek waiver of the pre-deposit amount of 75% of the total amount on the ground of the petitioner being under severe financial constraints and hardship. It is also the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had closed down its business of catering and supplying food and refreshment on board of various long distance trains run by the Indian Railways since
December, 2008. It is also the case of the petitioner that on the said application of the petitioner the learned Appellate Tribunal granted stay on the operation of the order passed by the
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, subject to deposit of
40% of the assessed amount and interest amount. The said amount of 40% due to financial constraints the petitioner could not deposit. It is also the case of the petitioner that vide orders dated 7.7.2010 the Appellate Tribunal granted extension of time to the petitioner to deposit the said 40% of the amount but again the petitioner could not deposit the said amount and then again the petitioner sought another extension to deposit the said amount, but this time the Appellate Tribunal had dismissed the a
) g appeal filed by the petitioner on the failure of the petitioner to deposit the said amount towards the pre-deposit. Explaining the financial constraints of the petitioner it has been submitted that petitioner firm had closed down its business in December, 2008 and since then the petitioner was not earning any amount and even prior thereto it had been suffering hearry losses. It is also the case of the petitioner that the learned Appellate Tribunal did not appreciate the fact that non-deposit of said 40o/o of the amount by the petitioner was not intentional but due to the financial hardship of the petitioner.
Considering the fact that the assets of the petitioner firm were taken over by the Receiver appointed by the High Court of
Kolkata in case title Vrajesh Agarwal vs Smt. Sushma Poddar &
Ors. bearing CS No. 1,7812001 and the Receiver having invested the liquidity of the petitioner firm in various fixed deposits in the nationalized banks prima facie it can be believed that the petitioner might not be in a position to deposit the said 40% towards the pre-deposit in terms of Section 7(O) as directed by the Appellate Tribunal. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has already deposited an amount of Rs. 20 lakhs as directed by this v
Court vide order dated 28.7.201-0 and with the said deposit of the amount the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal may decide the said appeal filed by the petitioner.
With the above directions the impugned order dated
1.5.7 .20L0 passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate
Tribunal thereby dismissing the appeal filed-by the petitioner is set aside. Let the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal hear the appeal filed by the petitioner and decide the same on its own merits after giving due opportunity of hearing to both the parties.
The aforesaid obsenrations of this Court shall not, however, come in the way of the Appellate Tribunal to decide the appeal of the appellant on merits.
. Parties are directed to appear before the Appellate
Tribunal on 3'd October , 20tt.
With the above directions the present petition is disposed of. a
Dasti.
September L5, zOLl rkr
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J
Present: Ms. Seema Jain with Mr. Dushyant K. Mahant and Ms. Savita Singh for the petitioner.
Mr. Vikas Kumar for the respondent. fW.P.(C\
No. 4889 66,1010
By this petition filed under Arlicle 2261227 of the
Constitution of India the petitioner seeks directions to direct the
Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal to restore the appeal filed by the petitioner and to give opportunity to the petitioner to prove its case.
The grievance raised by the petitioner in the present petition is that a demand of Rs. 69,65,008 was raised by the
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner I, Regional Office, Kolkata against the petitioner on account of default committed by the petitioner in depositing provident fund contribution for the periodJuly, 1988 to December, 200L and on the said demand further interest of Rs. 22,33,L561- was also imposed as an interest. The said order of the Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner was challenged by the petitioner in an appeal NO. 515(15) of 2007 filed by the petitioner under Section 7-I of the
{
2011:DHC:16416
*
Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, L952 and along with the said appeal the petitioner had also filed an application to seek waiver of the pre-deposit amount of 75% of the total amount on the ground of the petitioner being under severe financial constraints and hardship. It is also the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had closed down its business of catering and supplying food and refreshment on board of various long distance trains run by the Indian Railways since
December, 2008. It is also the case of the petitioner that on the said application of the petitioner the learned Appellate Tribunal granted stay on the operation of the order passed by the
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, subject to deposit of
40% of the assessed amount and interest amount. The said amount of 40% due to financial constraints the petitioner could not deposit. It is also the case of the petitioner that vide orders dated 7.7.2010 the Appellate Tribunal granted extension of time to the petitioner to deposit the said 40% of the amount but again the petitioner could not deposit the said amount and then again the petitioner sought another extension to deposit the said amount, but this time the Appellate Tribunal had dismissed the a
) g appeal filed by the petitioner on the failure of the petitioner to deposit the said amount towards the pre-deposit. Explaining the financial constraints of the petitioner it has been submitted that petitioner firm had closed down its business in December, 2008 and since then the petitioner was not earning any amount and even prior thereto it had been suffering hearry losses. It is also the case of the petitioner that the learned Appellate Tribunal did not appreciate the fact that non-deposit of said 40o/o of the amount by the petitioner was not intentional but due to the financial hardship of the petitioner.
Considering the fact that the assets of the petitioner firm were taken over by the Receiver appointed by the High Court of
Kolkata in case title Vrajesh Agarwal vs Smt. Sushma Poddar &
Ors. bearing CS No. 1,7812001 and the Receiver having invested the liquidity of the petitioner firm in various fixed deposits in the nationalized banks prima facie it can be believed that the petitioner might not be in a position to deposit the said 40% towards the pre-deposit in terms of Section 7(O) as directed by the Appellate Tribunal. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has already deposited an amount of Rs. 20 lakhs as directed by this v
Court vide order dated 28.7.201-0 and with the said deposit of the amount the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal may decide the said appeal filed by the petitioner.
With the above directions the impugned order dated
1.5.7 .20L0 passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate
Tribunal thereby dismissing the appeal filed-by the petitioner is set aside. Let the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal hear the appeal filed by the petitioner and decide the same on its own merits after giving due opportunity of hearing to both the parties.
The aforesaid obsenrations of this Court shall not, however, come in the way of the Appellate Tribunal to decide the appeal of the appellant on merits.
. Parties are directed to appear before the Appellate
Tribunal on 3'd October , 20tt.
With the above directions the present petition is disposed of. a
Dasti.
September L5, zOLl rkr
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J
JUDGMENT