S DURGESHWARAN Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When the petitioner mentioned for extension of interim order, this Court was not inclined to grant extension of interim order and this Writ Petition is a clear abuse of process of law. The very same petitioner earlier filed Writ Petitions in W.P(MD).Nos.6174, 11472 and 1700 of 2008 before this Court, challenging the order demanding dues including the distraint proceedings initiated. All the three Writ Petitions were dismissed by this Court stating that if the petitioner is aggrieved, the effective remedy by way of appeal under Section 7-I of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"] before the Employees' Provident Fund Tribunal alone is available and he cannot dispute before this Court regarding the partnership business liability as well as the status of the petitioner in the said partnership.

(2.) Even though the order was made as early as on 06.10.2010, the petitioner moved the Division Bench with Writ Appeals in W.A.(MD)Nos.221 to 223 of 2011. When the Writ Appeals themselves were taken up for hearing, for the reasons best known, the petitioner withdrew the Writ Appeals with liberty to file appeals under Section 7-I of the Act and he has also made an endorsement in the appeal bundles. Accepting the endorsement made by the counsel, the Division Bench dismissed the Writ Appeals with liberty to file appeals. The original order of assessment was also handed over and he was directed to file appeals within two weeks vide order dated 01.03.2011.

(3.) Thereafter, the petitioner exhausted the right of appeal under Section 7-I before the Employees' Provident Fund Tribunal and the said appeal was taken on file as A.T.A.No.303(13)2011. As a pre-requisite for entertaining the appeal, the Tribunal directed the petitioner to deposit 40% of the assessed amount within two months and in case of such deposit, the respondents, Employees' Provident Fund authorities were directed not to take any coercive measures till the disposal of the appeal presented. The counsel for the respondent Provident Fund Department opposed the admission of the appeal. However, in any event, the appeal was admitted and the interim order was granted on a conditional basis. It is once again the petitioner is before this Court challenging the interim order dated 25.04.2011. It is not clear as to how the petitioner can have a second round of litigation, that too, against the conditional interim order passed by the Tribunal. Under Section 7-O of the Act, no appeal by the employer shall be entertained by a Tribunal, unless he has deposited 75% of the amount due from him as determined by an officer referred to in section 7-A. The proviso to Section 7-O gives liberty to the Tribunal, for reasons to be recorded in writing, to waive or reduce the amount to be deposited under the said Section.