MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION LTD. Vs. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, SRO AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in the present writ petition has challenged the order dated 10th February, 2009 passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal by virtue of which in exercise of its power under Section 7(O) of the Employees. Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act.), the Appellate Tribunal has instead of 75% of pre deposit as is envisaged under the statute, directed the petitioner to deposit only 25% of the of the assessed amount.

(2.) THE petitioner felt aggrieved by the aforesaid interim order and is accordingly preferring the present writ petition. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that in a similar matter earlier, the same Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 27th September, 2006 in ATA No. 92 (9)/2006 between Maharashtra Co -operative Marketing v. RPFC, Mumbai had stayed the recoveries pursuant to the impugned order dated 07.4.1998 in the said matter, and thereby no condition of pre - deposit was invoked as envisaged under Section 7(O) of the Act. On the basis of the said order, it has been urged that in the present case also, the learned Appellate Tribunal ought to have given a complete waiver against the pre -deposit.

(3.) PER contra, the learned Counsel for the Department who has appeared in response to the advance copy having been served, has contested the claim of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The learned Counsel has drawn my attention to Section 17B of the Act which creates a joint liability in the event of transfer of any establishment by the transferor to the transferee. Further, it has been stated that this is a question of fact to be adjudicated in the appeal itself as to whether it is new or old Federation which is responsible to pay the contribution.