M/S. M.B. Security And Investigation Bureau And ANR. v. Union Of India And ANR.

18.06.2025 Item No.7 Ct. No. 30 Aloke WPA 12873 of 2025 M/s. M.B. Security & Investigation Bureau & Anr. Vs Union of India & Anr.

Mr. Prabir Maji ... for the petitioners Mr. Ujjawal Datta ... for the respondent no. 2/ EPF Authorities

1. Affidavit-of-service filed be kept with the record.

2. On being served respondent/EPF authority is being represented.

3. The present writ application has been preferred praying for direction upon the respondent authorities not to give effect to the order dated 17.02.2025 passed under Section 14B of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952, by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional Office, Kolkata.

4. It is submitted that an appeal against the order dated 17th February, 2025 has been preferred before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Kolkata.

Documents showing that an appeal has been filed on 29.04.2025 has been annexed.

5. It appears that at present the post of Presiding Officer, CGIT, Kolkata is lying

vacant and in spite of an appeal pending before the CGIT, Kolkata, the respondent authorities are proceeding with the recovery notice dated 08.04.2025.

6. It appears from summon dated 12.08.2024 that summon was issued by the authority concerned for a hearing under Section 14B of the EPF and MP Act, 1952 and for payment of interest to be assessed on the said damage under Section 7Q of the Act.

7. In the said proceeding an order dated 17.02.2025 was passed under Section 14B of the Act and a separate order also dated 17.02.2025 under Section 7Q of the EPF Act was passed.

8. In Arcot Textile Mills Ltd.

vs Reg.

Provident Fund Commissioner & Ors., in Civil Appeal No. 9488 of 2013, decided on 18th October, 2013, the Supreme Court held:- "15. On a perusal of the aforesaid provision it is evident that an appeal to the tribunal lies in respect of certain action of the Central Government or order passed by Central Government or any authority on certain provisions of the Act. We have scanned the anatomy of the said provisions before. On a studied scrutiny, it is quite vivid that though an appeal lies against recovery of damages under Section 14B of Act, no appeal provided for against imposition of interest as stipulated under Section 7Q. It is seemly to note here that Section 14B has been

enacted to penalize the defaulting employers as also to provide reparation for the amount of loss suffered by the employees. It is not only a warning to employers in general not to commit a breach of the statutory requirements but at the same time it is meant to provide compensation or redress to the beneficiaries, i.e., to recompense the employees for the loss sustained by them. The entire amount of damages awarded under Section 14B except for the amount relatable to administrative charges to be transferred to Employees'

Provident Fund. (see Organo Chemical Industries and another v. Union of India and others[2])

18. At this stage, it is necessary to clarify the position of law which do arise in certain situations.

The competent authority under the Act while determining the moneys due from the employee shall be required to conduct an inquiry and pass an order.

An order under Section 7A is an order that determines the liability of the employer under the provisions of the Act and while determining the liability the competent authority offers an opportunity of hearing to the concerned establishment. At that stage, the delay in payment of the dues and component of interest are determined. It is a composite order. To elaborate, it is an order passed under Section 7A and 7Q together. Such an order shall be amenable to appeal under Section 7I. The same is true of any composite order a facet of which is amenable to appeal and Section 7I of the Act. But, if for some reason when the authority chooses to pass an independent order under Section 7Q the same is not appealable.

23. Presently we shall address to the nature of the lis that can arise under this provision. There cannot be any dispute that the Act in question is a beneficial social legislation to ensure health and other benefits of the employees and the employer under the Act is under statutory obligation to make the deposit that is due from him.

In the event of default committed by the employer Section 14-B steps in and

calls upon the employer to pay the damages.

(See: Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. S.D. College, Hoshiarpur and others[12]). Section 7Q which provides for interest for belated payment basically a compensation for payment of interest to affected employees. This provision has been made to secure just and humane conditions of work as has been opined in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Hooghly Mills Company Limited and others[13]. The language employed in Section 7Q provides for levy of interest on delayed payment and the rates have been stipulated. When a composite order is passed or order imposing interest becomes a part of the order or levy in any of the provisions of the Act the authority grants a reasonable opportunity of hearing to employer/affected party."

9. From the materials on record it appears that the summon for hearing was a composite summon and, as such, even though two separate orders have been passed they have been passed on the same date. As such, the orders under Section 14B and 7 Q of the EPF Act in this case is a composite order.

10. Thus the petitioner is at liberty to prefer an appeal before the tribunal in respect of both orders being under Sections 14B and 7Q of the EPF Act dated 17.02.2025, which in substance is a composite order.

11. Admittedly, an appeal under Section 14B has been filed before the CGIT, Kolkata on 9th May, 2025 as seen from the copy of the documents filed.

12. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the petitioner shall include his relief as prayed for in the writ application against the order passed under Section 7Q of the EPF Act on 17.02.2025, in the appeal preferred before the Tribunal.

13. The writ application is thus disposed of by granting such liberty to the petitioner, as it also appears from a notice by the authorized officer dated 25.04.2025 and the recovery officer's notice dated 08.04.2025, that one composite notice in respect of the execution of the order under Section 14B and interest under Section 7Q of the EPF Act has been issued.

14. Accordingly, said notices dated 25.04.2025 and 08.04.2025 along with orders dated 17.02.2025 passed under Section 14B and 7Q of the EPF Act, be stayed till the appeal is taken up for hearing by the Tribunal.

15. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to pray for extension of the said order of stay before the tribunal as and when the appeal is taken up for hearing.

16. The writ petition stands disposed of.

17. All connected applications, if any, stand disposed of.

18. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

19. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.

(Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)