M/s Pereira English Noble School v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-ll (Compliance)

Andhra Pradesh HC22 Jan 2024WA/1159/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a Writ Appeal where the High Court below had directed the appellant school to deposit 40% of the EPF demand as a pre-condition to filing an appeal. The court held this encroached on the appellant's statutory right to apply for complete waiver or reduction under Section 7(O) of the EPF Act.

What did the court decide?

The appellant is at liberty to prefer the appeal within two weeks; they are directed to file appropriate application for complete waiver or reduction of pre-deposit under Section 7(O).

M/s Pereira English Noble School Vs The… — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

¶2

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶3

¶4

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶5

WRIT APPEAL No.1159 of 2023

¶6

M/s Pereira English Noble School, Popularly called as P.E.N. School (Recognized by the Government of Andhra Pradesh) Rep. by its Authorized Signatory, P.L.Swapna, W/o Maheswara Rao, R/o D.No.30/15/39, Sundari, Daba Gardens, Visakhapatnam.

¶7

... Appellant

¶8

Versus

¶9

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II (Compliance), Regional Office, Visakhapatnam & another.

¶10

…Respondents

¶11

Mr.D. Vamsi Krishna, Counsel for the appellant.

¶12

Mr. P. Ram Bhupal Reddy, Standing Counsel for EPF, for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶13

DATE : 23.01.2024

¶14

PER DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ (Oral):

¶15

The present Letters Patent Appeal is preferred against the

¶16

judgment and order, dated 04.08.2023, passed in W.P. No.19651 of

HCJ & RRR, J

W.A.No.1159 of 2023

The petitioner had filed the writ petition challenging the order passed under Section 7(A) of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short ‘the Act’) and directed the petitioner/appellant herein to deposit an amount of Rs.1,29,38,872/- towards EPF due.

¶22

Aggrieved by the orders passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, the petitioner challenged the same before the learned single Judge, who by virtue of the judgment and order impugned, ordered the petitioner to invoke the appeal provision under Section 7(I) of the Act within a period of two weeks therefrom subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits 40% of the amount demanded as per the impugned order, dated 10.07.2023.

¶23

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment and order is unsustainable in view of the fact that while relegating the appellant to the remedy of appeal as provided under Section 7(I) of the Act, had made the same subject to deposit of 40% of the demand raised by virtue of the order impugned in the writ petition, which comes to approximately Rs.51,75,548/-. It is stated that if the appellant were to deposit the 40% amount as ordered just to avail the remedy of appeal before the Appellate Authority under

¶24

HCJ & RRR, J 3 W.A.No.1159 of 2023

¶25

the Act, the appellant would have to close down its Educational Institute.

¶26

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶27

There is no doubt that an order passed under Section 7(A) of the Act can be challenged in an appeal to be filed under Section 7(I) of the Act. However, Section 7(O) of the Act envisages clearly that no appeal by the employer shall be entertained by the Tribunal unless the employer deposits an amount equivalent to 75% of the amount due as determined by the Officer under Section 7(A) of the Act.

¶28

However, the proviso to Section 7(O) of the Act clearly envisages that the Tribunal may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, waive or reduce the amount to be deposited under Section 7(O) of the Act.

¶29

It thus transpires that while preferring an appeal, the appellant may apply to the Tribunal for either reduction or complete waiver of the pre-deposit as envisaged under Section 7(O) of the Act. By virtue of the judgment and order impugned, the learned single Judge while relegating the appellant to the remedy of appeal and by ordering the appellant to deposit an amount

¶30

W.A.No.1159 of 2023

¶31

¶32

equivalent to 40% of the due, has in fact taken away the right vested with the appellant to make an application for reducing or completely waiving the amount of pre-deposit. In our opinion, it appears that the provisions of Section 7(O) of the Act were never brought to the notice of the learned single Judge and therefore, the indulgence shown by the learned single Judge in fact has resulted in taking away the right of the appellant to make a prayer for complete waiver of the pre-deposit in terms of proviso to Section 7(O) of the Act.

¶33

Be that as it may, we modify the judgment and order to the extent that while the appellant may be at liberty to prefer the appeal within two weeks before the Appellate Authority we leave the appellant free to file an appropriate application in terms of proviso to Section 7(O) of the Act, which may be considered on its own merits by the Appellate Authority.

¶34

The Writ Appeal is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶35

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶36

DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

¶37

AKN

¶38

HCJ & RRR, J 5 W.A.No.1159 of 2023

¶39

224