LATHEEF K.A. Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is the proprietor of M/s. Malabar Village Food Court, Muvattupuzha. The said establishment is covered under the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 ('EPF Act' for short) and the sundry schemes framed thereunder. The business run by the petitioner met with loss and there occurred considerable delay in remitting the contributions towards the Provident Fund Organization. He was accordingly issued with Ext. P1 notice by the 4th respondent calling upon him to appear and furnish explanation. The petitioner appeared before the 4th respondent and gave reasons for the delay in remittance. The 4th respondent, however, without heeding to the explanations offered by the petitioner, proceeded to pass Ext. P2 order determining penal damages under Section 14B of the EPF Act for delayed remittance of contributions for the months from 4/2013 to 2/2019. The said order was challenged by the petitioner herein before the Appellate Tribunal and the same is pending. It is contended that the 4th respondent proceeded to levy interest under Section 7Q of the EPF Act and determined a sum of Rs. 94,870/-. According to the petitioner, Exhibit P5 order levying interest was made without affording adequate opportunity to the petitioner to furnish his explanations. It is contended that though the legislature has provided an appellate forum to challenge the order passed under Section 14B, no such remedy is offered to an order passed under Section 7Q demanding interest. This, according to the petitioner, is a lacuna in the EPF Act. When the legality of Ext. P2 order is itself under consideration of the statutory forum, imposition of interest under section 7Q is contrary to all tenets of law, contends the petitioner. It is further contended that the issuance of Ext. P5 order is a futile exercise as the fate of Ext. P5 notice is dependent on the outcome of Ext. P3 appeal. It is averred that on the strength of Ext. P5 order, Exts. P6 and P7 prohibitory orders have been passed by the respondents putting on hold the account maintained by the petitioner with the Thodupuzha Branch of Federal Bank. It is contended that due to the embargo placed by the respondents, the petitioner is finding it difficult to operate his business and this would affect the rights granted to him by the Constitution of India. The petitioner has therefore approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) Heard Sri Vipin D.G., the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Joy Thattil Ittoop, the learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent.

(3.) Sri Vipin reiterated the contentions in the writ petition and argued that the failure of the legislature to incorporate a provision for appeal against an order passed under Section 7Q is illegal and unjust and therefore ultra vires the Constitution of India. According to the learned counsel, the 4th respondent has violated the principles of natural justice insofar as adequate opportunity was not granted to the petitioner to bring home his point that levy of interest while the order under Section 14B was on the challenge was against all tenets of law. It is further contended that since a specific provision is contemplated under the Act for levy of penal damages under Section 14B, the provision for levy of interest for the same default would amount to double jeopardy.