Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
LPA 23/2016 & C.M.No.1129/2016 (stay)
EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION THR PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER &ANR Appellants
Through: Mr.Balraj Dewan, Adv.
Through: None.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
13.01.2016 C.M.No.l130/2016 (exemvtiom)
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
C.M. No.1132/2016 (delay of44 days in re-films)
In view ofthe reasons statedin the application, the delayin re-filing is condoned and application is disposed of.
LPA No.23/2016 & C.M.No.1131/2016 (delay of425 days in filins)
ORDER
1. The present appeal is preferred against the order ofthe learned Single Judge dated 30.07.20l[4] in W.P.(C) No.l726/2012. By the said order, the writ petition filed by the respondents herein was allowed setting aside the prohibitory orders dated 20.01.2012 issued by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and Recovery Officer of Employees Provident Fund Organization as well as the consequential attachment order dated 20.01.2012. -
2. Assailing die said order, the present appeal has been filed by the respondents in the writ petition i.e. the Employees Provident Fund 2016:DHC:8423 Organization on 28.10.2015. The only explanation offered for the inordinate delay of 425 days in filing the appeal is that the certified copy of the judgment ofthe learned Single Judge was not sent to the Department by the counsel who appeared in the writ petition. The explanation offered for the long delay of 425 days apart fi-om being extremely vague is totally unsatisfactory. We, therefore, do not find any justifiable reason to condone the delay in filing the appeal.
3. According to us, even the main appeal is without any substance. ^ As rightly held by the learned Single Judge, the assets of the respondent Nos.[3] and 4 herein who are only guarantors cannot be proceeded against for recovery of dues of the respondent No.2 herein/creditor, particularly, without notice and without adjudication that the respondent Nos.[2] to 4 are one and the same entity. We also entirely agree with the conclusion of the learned Single Judge that the proceedings under Section 8F(3) of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 are in the nature of gamishee proceedings and the same are not available for proceeding against the assets of the entities if they do not hold any amount ^ on account ofthe establishment in question. Therefore, even on merits the order under appeal is unassailable.
4. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. wy CfflEF JUSTICE JAYANTNATH, J JANUARY 13, 2016/ 'anb'