SPENTEX INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioner has challenged the order dated 4 th June 2019 passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court granting stay subject to deposit of 40% of the amount with the EPFA. Counsel for petitioner submits that appeal was preferred against the order passed under Section 14B of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, therefore, the provisions relating to pre-deposit under Section 7-O of the Act will not be attracted and petitioner cannot be asked to deposit 40% of the amount and in support of his submission he has placed reliance upon the order of Division Bench of this court dated 30/4/2016 passed in WP No. 5835/2015 in the case of M/s Hindustan Motors Ltd Vs. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner. Opposing the prayer counsel for respondent submits that the order for deposit of the amount has not been passed under Section 7-O of the Act but it has been passed under the provisions of Rules.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record it is noticed that petitioner has filed an appeal before the CGIT against the order of Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner under Section 14-B of the Act calculating the damages to the tune of Rs. 14,14,855/-. Alongwith appeal petitioner has filed application for stay. Tribunal has admitted the appeal and by the impugned order dated 4/6/2019 while deciding the application for stay the tribunal has imposed the condition of deposit of 40% of the amount determined by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner. The order for deposit of 40% of amount has not been passed by the tribunal under Section 7-O of the Act as Section 7-O is attracted at the stage prior to entertaining the appeal, whereas in the present case the appeal has already been entertained and condition to deposit part of amount has been imposed for granting stay. Since undisputedly the tribunal has been vested with the power to grant stay therefore, the power to impose condition while granting stay is implicit in that.