THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION Vs. M/S. INDUS FILA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner of the Employees' Provident Fund Organization, has presented these petitions calling in question the common order dated 24.7.2013 in ATA Nos. 491[6] 2013, 492[6] 2013 & 493[6] 2013 of the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents suffered orders dated 17.6.2013, 10.7.2013 and 4.6.2013 passed by the petitioner invoking section 7A of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 [for short 'Act'], determining the contributions due both in respect of employer and employees. Those orders, when carried in appeals under section 7-I of the Act, before the Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, led to the orders impugned, modifying the orders by extending the benefit of payment of the amounts due in sixty monthly installments, first of which was payable by 16.8.2013 and every successive month thereafter. According to learned Counsel, the Appellate Tribunal failed to notice that the letter bearing No.RRC-I/21[17]/2011/WB dated 11.4.2012 provided conditions for extending the benefit of payment of the amount determined under section 7A of the Act, in installments, and that one such condition was 'In case of default of employees' share, the proposal for installment will not be considered' and therefore respondents, when found to have defaulted in the matter of payment of employees' share were disentitled to payment in installments. In addition, learned counsel submits that under section 7-L of the Act, the Appellate Tribunal had no jurisdiction to grant the benefit of payment of the amount determined, in installments.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the respondents, per contra, submits that although there is no dispute over the determination of the amount due as contribution both of the employer and the employee in the orders dated 17.6.2013, 10.7.2013 and 4.6.2013 of the petitioner passed under section 7A of the Act, nevertheless, regard being had to section 7-I of the Act, investing an appellate jurisdiction in the Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, which is deemed to be a judicial proceeding, therefore section 7L of the Act invests the Tribunal with the power to affirm, modify or annul the order appealed against including modification of the orders of the petitioner by granting installments as a mode to liquidate statutory liability cannot be found fault with.