REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND Vs. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner has challenged the orders dated 23.3.2012 (Annexure P-4) and 1.5.2012 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short "the Tribunal") in an application filed by respondent No. 2 along with appeal challenging the order pertaining to levy interest and damages. It is a case, in which respondent No. 2, which is appellant before the Tribunal had purchased the properties of M/s Punjab Fibers Limited-respondent No. 3 in an auction, conducted by the Industrial Finance Corporation of India under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short "the Act"). Sale certificate in favour of respondent No. 2 was issued on 15.12.2010. As the petitioner had to recover huge amount from M/s Punjab Fibers Limited, whose property was auctioned for recovery of secured debts by the Industrial Finance Corporation of India, respondent No. 2 was directed to pay the amount. After respondent No. 2 had taken over the assets of M/s Punjab Fibers Limited, notices were issued for levying of interest and damages on account of default committed by M/s Punjab Fibers Limited. Assessment on account of interest and damages was made vide order dated 15.4.2011 for the period from April, 2001 to October, 2010 and vide order dated 24.2.2012 for the period from November, 1999 to October, 2010.

(2.) Against the aforesaid two orders dated 15.4.2011 and 24.2.2012, respondent No. 2 preferred appeals before the Tribunal. After hearing the stay application in ATA No. 329 (11) 2012 against the order dated 24.2.2012 levying interest and damages, the Tribunal stayed the operation of the impugned order and further directed for release of the attachment of the properties, made vide recovery certificates dated 13.2.2004 and 20.1.2011/25.1.2011, while directing issue of notice in the appeal, vide order dated 1.5.2012. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Tribunal reiterated its earlier order dated 23.3.2012 and directed for release of attachment of properties of the establishment. The appeal is now stated to be listed on 4.9.2012.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that at the time of passing of the order in an application for interim stay filed by respondent No. 2 along with the appeal, the Tribunal has passed two orders, namely, staying the operation of the order impugned in the appeal and further directing release of attachment of properties vide recovery certificates dated 13.2.2004 and 20.1.2011/25.1.2011. He further submitted that in terms of the provisions of the Act, the appeal could be entertained only on deposit of 75% of the demand raised. The Tribunal has not mentioned as to why the operation of the impugned order has been stayed and what are the reasons for waiving of the condition of pre-deposit.