KATIHAR MEDICAL COLLEGE Vs. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Katihar Medical College through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director has challenged the orders of the Tribunal, New Delhi, dated 3.8.2011 and 22.9.2011 by which the Tribunal has directed the petitioner to deposit 30% of the assessed amount under Section 7-0 of the Employees' Provident Fund & Misc. Provisions Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) The facts of the case are that for the years 1990-92 an assessment was made by the department under section 7-A which was duly paid by the petitioner college. Again, an assessment was raised for payment of the employees provident fund for the years 1995-2000 under Section 7-A of the Act. The order was passed on 8.4.2004. The establishment deposited the assessed amount found by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner on examination of the records of the establishment, found that certain amounts were excluded from the purview of assessment for statutory contribution as the management of the establishment claimed that these employees were getting less than Rs. 5,000/- per month. This exemption is granted to the establishment for those employees who are receiving less than Rs. 5,000/- as pay/wage vide paragraph 2(F)(II) of the EPF Scheme, 1952, which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 6,500/- with effect from 4.5.2001. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-ll started a proceeding under Section 7-C to assess the escaped amount vide order, dated 27.1.2006. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner under Section 7-C assessed the amount payable to the employees as Rs. 33,372/- and also amount of interest of Rs. 23,811/-. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order challenged it in appeal. The order of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner was set aside on the ground that the officer who had assessed the dues under Section 7-A of the Act was only authorized to assess the escaped amount under Section 7-C of the Act. The matter was remanded back to the authority under Section 7-A. It may be noted here that the appellate authority did not pass an order under Section 7-0 of the Act for deposit of 75% of the assessed amount. The reason is Obvious, the order impugned was challenged on the ground of jurisdiction of the authority to decide questions under Section 7-C of the Act. Subsequently the amount due under Section 7-C of the Act was re-assessed by the authority under Section 7-A of the Act which has been challenged by filing an appeal.

(3.) In the background of the aforesaid facts, the question raised before this court is whether the petitioner is bound to comply with the provisions of Section 7 0 of the Act, as it is contended that the order impugned has noi been passed under Section 7-A of the Act?