TIRUMURTI MILLS Vs. REGISTRAR EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPALLENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated September 18, 2007 passed by the learned single Judge directing the appellant to deposit 40% of the determined amount as a pre-condition of hearing the appeal on merit. The appellant filed a statutory appeal before the e. P. F. Appellate Tribunal as against the order passed by the Regional Provident Fund commissioner, Coimbatore dated August 2, 2005 under the provisions of Section 7-A of the employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous provisions Act, 1952. Section 7-O of the Act provides that an appeal could be entertained by the Tribunal only upon the employer depositing 75% of the amount due from him as determined under Section 7-A of the Act. There is a proviso to the said provision granting power to the tribunal to waive or reduce the amount to be deposited for reasons to be recorded in writing.

(2.) THE appellant being aggrieved by the direction issued by E. P. F. Appellate Tribunal, wherein a prayer was made for complete waiver of (sic) the condition of pre-deposit. The said prayer of the appellant was considered by the tribunal and for reasons recorded therein the tribunal directed the appellant to deposit 40% of the determined amount as payable by the regional Provident Fund Commissioner, coimbatore. Being aggrieved by the said order, a writ petition was filed in this Court which was considered by the learned single Judge in depth and the writ petition was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has again approached us by filing the present appeal on which we have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and also the counsel appearing for the respondent and examined the records to which our attention was drawn.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellant before us states that the provisions of section 7-O permits the Tribunal to waive the entire amount to be deposited. It is submitted that the appellant being a transferor of the establishment, cannot be held liable to pay the contributions and other sums due from respondent No. 5. The said submission is misconceived. In our considered opinion as to whether or not there was a change in the ownership or lease, consequence thereof and even if there is a change in the ownership/lease whether any liability can be fastened on the appellant are questions which have to be determined at the time of hearing the appeal on merits. Section 17-B of the said Act shall have to be examined with reference to facts of the case. The implication of Section 17-B is that change of ownership does not affect the liability of an establishment as establishment continues. We, however, clarify that the observation made by us and the learned single Judge are tentative and the Tribunal shall decide the appeal on merits without being influenced by any observation of the learned single Judge and by us. We may also note that the appellant had asked for and was granted further extension of time to deposit payment. This appeal has no merit and is dismissed.