Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 24th December, 2020
M/S DENTSU ONE PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.P. Arora and Mr. Rajiv Arora, Advocates. (M: 9899233114)
Through: Ms. Inderjeet Sidhu, Advocate.
Mr. Krishnakumar, Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, RO
Delhi South
JUDGMENT
1. This hearing has been done by video conferencing.
2. The present petition challenges the impugned order dated 3rd December, 2020 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (hereinafter “CGIT”) by which the CGIT has, subject to the deposit of Rs.12 lakhs, stayed order dated 11th August, 2020 passed under Section 14B of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter “EPF Act”) and admitted the appeal of the Petitioner against the same.
3. This is the second round of litigation by the Petitioner-Company. In the earlier round of litigation, the matter was remanded back by the ld. Division Bench of this Court for reconsideration vide order dated 24th January, 2019. The operative portion of the order reads as under: 2020:DHC:3728
April 2014 not later than 1st March 2019. The Competent Authority will hear the parties and endeavor to render its decision not later than 30th June 2019.”
4. Pursuant to this order, the authority has made a fresh determination vide order dated 11th August, 2020. The operative portion of the said order reads as under:
5. Submissions have been made on behalf of the Petitioner-Company and the Department by Mr. Arora and Ms. Inderjeet Sidhu, ld. counsels. The contention of Mr. Arora, ld. counsel for the Petitioner- Company is that there was no clarity as to whether deposits were to be made in respect of expat employees of the Petitioner-Company, which is a subsidiary of a Japanese company. From the time when the clarification was issued by the Department in respect of expat employees, the provident fund dues were deposited and wherever interest was liable to be paid even that deposit was made. It is submitted that the Petitioner-Company has more than 300 employees in respect of which there has been no default in deposit of provident fund.
6. On the other hand, Ms. Sidhu, ld. counsel for the Department submits that there is clear finding of mens rea in the Petitioner’s case, which resulted in the imposition of damages under Section 7Q of the EPF Act, as is evident from a reading of the order itself, which shows that the Company had defaulted continuously on several occasions.
7. Without going into the competing contentions of the parties, since the appeal is pending before the CGIT, the only question that is to be seen is as to whether the condition for grant of stay is to be interfered with or not. A perusal of the operative portion of the order extracted above, dated 11th August, 2020 shows that the total amount computed under Sections 14B and 7Q of the EPF Act is Rs.1,93,51,713/-. The admitted position is that a sum of Rs.62,05,360/- is lying with the Department which almost constitutes 1/3rd of the amount determined under Sections 14B and 7Q of the EPF Act. Though there is no doubt that the CGIT has the discretion in directing the conditions for grant of stay orders, since a substantial amount is lying deposited with the Department, this Court is of the opinion that the appeal of the Petitioner deserves to be heard without insisting upon the deposit of Rs.12 lakhs. Since the issue has been pending for some time, the CGIT is directed to decide the appeal at the earliest, on or before 30th April, 2021.
8. The petition along with all pending applications is disposed of in the above terms.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE DECEMBER 24, 2020/dk/T