AR.A.S. AUTO PRIVATE LIMITED, 9A/1, KAVIMANI STREET, PANKAJAM COLONY Vs. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EPF ORGANIZATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, LADY DOAK COLLEGE ROAD, CHOKKIKULAM, MADURAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in the writ petition is for a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records from the file of the 3rd respondent herein in his notice of demand in TN/MDU/808/RECY/RO of 09 dated 15.12.2009, received by the petitioner on 22.12.2009 and to quash the same.

(2.) The petitioner is a private limited company and was engaging in the business of distribution of spare parts and Dealers for Ambassador cars and Lancer cars etc. In July, 2005, the petitioner Company was closed and previous to that number of employees were working in the company and for them periodical contribution has been made by the petitioner company. However, in spite of the said contribution having been made by the company, the first respondent had issued two orders under Sec. 14B of the EPF Act, one is dated 27.04.2007 and another one is dated 30.09.2009 for recovery of interest for the belated payment of the dues. As against the said two orders, the petitioner company had filed appeals before the appellate authority i.e., Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal in ATA Nos. 638(13) of 2007 and 8(13) of 2009 respectively. The said two appeals are pending before the Appellate Tribunal. Though Appeal No. 638(13) of 2017 was dismissed for default at one point of time, subsequently on petition being filed by the petitioner, the said appeal got restored. In so far as the other appeal in ATA No.8(13) of 2009 is concerned, the same was also dismissed for default. However, the petition for restoration of the appeal was filed and the same is pending consideration before the Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, both the cases of the petitioner are pending before the Appellate Tribunal. When that being so, the third respondent issued the impugned order of recovery notice dated 15.12009, whereby the third respondent has sought to recover from the petitioner under two heads, one is for Rs.4,68,668.00 and another is for Rs.36,819.00. In the same impugned order the first respondent has also issued recovery notice for further sum under the other heads, one is for Rs.1,52,717.00 and another is for Rs.16,415.00. In fact the petitioner has remitted the said two sums i.e. Rs.1,52,717.00 and Rs.16,415.00 under 7Q proceedings. However, in respect of the other two amounts under 14B proceedings i.e., Rs.4,68,668.00 and Rs.36,819.00, the said Appeals are filed before the Appellate Tribunal and the same is pending. When the appeals are pending before the Tribunal, this recovery notice was issued by the first respondent and once the amount is paid as per recovery notice, then it is fait accompli, if it succeeds in the appeals pending before the Tribunal. Therefore, the petitioner has come out with this writ petition with the aforesaid prayer.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that admittedly the petitioner's appeals filed before the Appellate Tribunal against the said orders seeking recovery from the petitioner under Sec. 14B of EPF Act are pending. When the appeals are pending before the Appellate Tribunal, recovery cannot be made. In this regard, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon two decisions of this Court: