M/S Senkottai Municipalities v. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 18.04.2023

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI and C.M.P.(MD) No.4660 of 2023 M/s.Senkottai Municipalities Senkottai Thirunelveli-627 809 through its Commissioner ... Appellant -vs1.The Assistant provident Fund Commissioner Employee's Provident Fund Organization Regional Office, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan N.G.O.B.Colony Thirunelveli-627 007 2.The Recovery Officer Employee's Provident Fund Organization Regional Office, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan N.G.O.B.Colony Thirunelveli-627 007 ... Respondents

Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order (relating to recovery under Section 7I & 7O of the EPF Act) dated 16.12.2022, passed in W.P.(MD) No.28341 of 2022, on the file of this Court. For Appellant :

Mr.M.Pandiarajan For Respondents :

Mr.Mahaboob Athiff

J U D G M E N T

[Judgment of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.] What was challenged before the Writ Court is the interim order passed by the Labour Court, Chennai, requiring the condition under Section 7-O of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for brevity, "the Act") to be complied with in order to entertain the appeal filed by the appellant - Municipality.

2. The employer / appellant - Municipality filed an appeal under Section 7-I of the Act against the order of the Authority under the Act.

3. Section 7-O of the enactment reads as follows: "7-O. Deposit of amount due, on filing appeal. - No appeal by the employer shall be entertained by a

Tribunal unless he has deposited with it seventy-five per cent of the amount due from him as determined by an officer referred to in section 7-A:

Provided that the Tribunal may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, waive or reduce the amount to be deposited under this section."

4. However, taking note of the fact that the employer is the Municipality, the Labour Court had exercised its discretion available to it under the proviso and required the appellant - Municipality to deposit only 35% of the amount due. The terms of Section 7-O of the Act are mandatory. The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not meant for interfering with the discretionary orders passed by the Tribunals. Such interference would definitely affect the functioning of the Tribunals. When there is a mandate of the statute and the Labour Court has followed the mandate and exercised its discretion in a reasonable manner, we do not think that we can fault with the Writ Court for having dismissed the writ petition rejecting the challenge to such exercise. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant - Municipality requires a month's time to comply with the order passed by the Labour Court. Accepting the said request, the appellant is granted one month time from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment to comply with the order passed by the Labour Court.

[R.S.M., J.] [L.V.G., J.] 18.04.2023 NCC :

Yes / No Index :

Yes / No Internet :

Yes / No krk

R.SUBRAMANIAN , J.

and L.VICTORIA GOWRI , J.

krk and C.M.P.(MD) No.4660 of 2023 18.04.2023