MADRAS PINJRAPOLE Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed to quash the impugned recovery notice, dtd. 13/9/2024 issued by the first respondent.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner had filed an appeal as against the determination of the contribution under Sec. 7-A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 before the Appellate Tribunal. When the appeal came up for hearing, the same was dismissed for default. The petitioner already filed a restore application and the appeal was also restored. However, only because there is no Presiding Officer, the matter could not be taken up for admission and passing of any interim order. Therefore, the petitioner approached this Court.

(3.) Per contra, the learned Counsel for the first respondent organisation, would submit a huge amount of Rs.66,05,819.00 is due. The petitioner did not properly prosecute the appeal and obtained any interim stay. The petitioner is supposed to make a pre-deposit upto 75% of the entire claim. Only upon the pre-deposit, even the appellate authority could have granted any interim order. Even in the Tribunal, intermittently, the incharge Presiding Officer is visiting and therefore, the petitioner, without exhausting that remedy,wrongly approached this Court.