ASCENT MEDITECH LIMITED Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed challenging the order dtd. 26/4/2023, whereby application of the petitioner seeking waiver to deposit the entire amount to adjudicate the appeal under Sec. 7(i) of the Employees' Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act ,1952, has been partly allowed and the petitioner was directed to deposit 50% of the total amount awarded.

(2.) Facts, as averred in the petition, are as under: The petitioner is an establishment covered under the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act ,1952, (for short 'the Act') and the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 (for short "the Scheme"), having its PF Code for rendering compliance in respect of its employees, in terms of Sec. 2(f) of the Act. Respondent No.1 initiated proceedings under Sec. 7-A of the Act against respondent No.2. A witness summons in the proceedings under Sec. 7-A of the Act has been served upon the petitioner being principal employer wherein, certain documents were called for from the petitioner. The petitioner appeared and produced necessary documents, however, in the order dtd. 24/6/2022, under Sec. 7-A of the Act, assessment of Provident Fund dues has been made of Rs.25,32,142.00 for the period from 1/8/2018 to 31/8/2021. Under the order dtd. 24/6/2022, respondent No.2 and the present petitioner held jointly and severally liable for the liability assessed under Sec. 7-A of the Act amounting to Rs.25,32,142.00. Since, the order passed by respondent No.1 dtd. 24/6/2022 is contrary to the provisions of the Act, whereby liability has been fastened on the petitioner, the petitioner preferred an appeal challenging the said order under sec. 7-I of the Act. The petitioner also preferred an application under Sec. 7-O seeking waiver, wherein the application seeking Waiver has been partly allowed and the petitioner is directed to deposit 50% of the dues assessed. Aggrieved by which, the present petition is filed.

(3.) Heard learned advocate Mr.Deepak Dave for the petitioner. He submitted that directions issued by P.F. Authority to pay the liability assessed under Sec. 7A of the Act jointly by petitioner and respondent No-2, is illegal as respondent No.2 herein is having independent PF Code. Admittedly, the employees, for which, proceeding under sec. 7-A has been initiated and assessment has been made, are not the employees of the petitioner and are employees of respondent No.2. In Sec. 7-A proceedings, the petitioner has not been joined as party respondent, despite that, liability has been fastened. Even before fastening the liability, no Notice has been served upon the petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner has fair chance to succeed in the appeal and therefore, non-consideration of Waiver application is erroneous. Thus, the directions to deposit 50% amount is erroneous and challenging the same present petition is filed with a prayer to consider the application seeking Waiver. The respondent- authority may be directed to waive the pre-deposit during pendency of appeal under Sec. 7-I of the Act. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon decision rendered by Madras High Court in the case of Madurai District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vs. Employees Provident Fund Organization dtd. 7/9/2011 and submitted that this petition may be allowed.