BKR SWAMY SECURITY Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, SHIMOGA, KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the legality of the order dated 30.10.2017, passed by the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal-cum-Central Government Industrial Tribunal, whereby the learned Tribunal, while staying the further proceedings of the order dated 5.10.2017, passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner ('RPFC' for short), has imposed a condition upon the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh only) with the RPFC, on or before 30.11.2017.

(2.) Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner, M/s. BKR Swamy Security Agencies, a proprietorship firm, is a registered establishment under the Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishment Act. The petitioner's establishment is also covered under the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 ('the Act' for short). The core activities of the petitioner's establishment is to provide manpower for housekeeping, and/or security personnel to various government organizations, Universities, government hospitals. Since the petitioner was working for government departments, according to the petitioner, many a times, the payment would not be made promptly by the government department. In fact, the payment could be delayed as much as five to six months, or some times, even for more than a year. Since the government payment were delayed, the petitioner was forced to make payment of Rs. 80 lakh to Rs. 90 lakh per month, out of its own funds.

(3.) Mr. B. Manjunatha, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has pleaded that under Section 7-I of the Act, any person aggrieved by an order passed by any authority under the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 7A or under Section 14B, may prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against such an order. Moreover, Section 7-O of the Act requires that 75% of the amount due, as indicated in an order passed under Section 7A, has to be statutorily deposited with the Tribunal, without which the appeal would be entertained. Thus the requirement of a statutory deposit prior to filing the appeal, relates only to an order passed under Section 7A of the Act. Such a statutory deposit is required while a person files an appeal against an order passed under Section 14B of the Act. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, since the order under challenge is under Section 7A of the Act, the learned Tribunal is justified in imposing a condition that the petitioner must deposit Rs. 10 lakh before the Tribunal. In order to buttress his plea., the learned counsel has relied on the case of M/s. Shiv Harbal Research Laboratory v. Assistant P.F. Commissioner 2016 LLR 55 .