M/S Dewan Chand & Co Pvt Ltd v. Central Board of Trustees & Anr

1. Heard theTeamed counsel for both the parties.

2. the only question that needs consideration by us is whether the i appellant/writ petitioner is entitled to waiver of the pre-deposit required to be made under Section 7-0 of the/Employees' Provident: Funds' and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short 'the Act^ for preferring an' appeal against an order passed under Section 7A.;

3. - the.proviso to Section 7-0 ofthe Act empowers the EPF Appellate Tribunal constituted under Section 7Dto waive or reduce the amount of pre-, LPANo.93/2017. ^; Page lcfS.: 2017:DHC:8867-DB - i deposit for the reasons to be recorded in writing. The Tribunal, in the, • present base, by order dated 31.03.2016 disposed of the application of the appellant/writ petitioner under the proviso to Section 7-0 of the Act and ^ reduced the pre-deposit amount from 75% to 40%. When the said order was challehged before this Court, by the order under appeal, the learned Single \ Judgedirected:; ' ^ i /.,; ^ - "6^ Accordingly,:without,pr^udice to the rights - Vi and contentions ofthe parties, 50% of the pre-deposit of: / 40% as directed by the EPF Appellate Tribunal vide ^ ^ \: order dated 31.03.2016^ shall be deposited by the. s ^ - petitioner before the: Appellate TribunM within four >., ' ^. weeks from today. Uponsuch deposit having beenmade,,, ' the appeal would stand restored. The petitioner'^.account attached by the APFC shall stand released and the appeal '; -r will be decided on its merits.": ' 4., Against the said order ofthe learned Single Jud^e dated 04.11.2016, the present appeal has been filed contending inter alia that inthe facts and circunistances.ofthe case, the learned Single Judge should have completely waived the amount to be deposited under Section 7-0ojfthe Act. V: • 5.' Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties and having ^^ ' perused the ihMerial available on record, we are ofthe view that the learned Single,Judge has already shown indulgence in reducing the pre-deposit to 20% and no further interference is warranted by us..

6. The submission made by the learnedcounsel for the appeUant placing.: reliance ubon SLP (CGY No.8035/20l[6] titled Builders Association ofIndia Vs. Union of India decided pn 02.05.2016, according to us, deserve no, consideration sinc[6] the same relates to the merits of the case, with which we ' are not concerned at this stage. i - rLPANo.93/2017 V ' ' i 'Page 2of[3] -. '

7. However, since the four weeks' time granted by the iearried Single Judge for depositing the amount before the Appellate Tribunal has already expired, wepermit the appellant to deposit the same within four weeks from today.;

8. The appeal is accordingly disposed of CHIEF JUSTICE C FEBRUARY 06, 2017 'anb' SANGTT^HIMGI^ SEHGAL, J