22/03/2024, 17:38 Labour Law Reporter

2024 LLR 88
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Hon'ble Mr. Rajesh Kumar, J.
W.P.(C) No. 4185/2023, Dt/– 3-10-2023

M/s. Progressive Automotives Pvt. Ltd.

v.
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II (Recovery) and Ors.

EMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT FUNDS AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT, 1952 –

Sections 7A, 14B and 7Q – EPF Authority passed order under section 7A and 7Q of
the Act – Petitioner deposited the assessed amount – EPF Authority assessed
amount under section 14B of the Act without any notice to the petitioner thereby
depriving the petitioner of filing appeal against such order – without any notice to
the petitioner thereby depriving the petitioner of filing appeal against such order –
EPF Authority has issued recovery order and warrant of arrest – Petitioner has
challenged order of the EPF Authority in writ petition – Petitioner has also prayed to
direct the EPF Authority to provide copy of impugned order enabling the petitioner
to file appeal since such an order has never been communicated to the petitioner ,
i.e., why petitioner has filed writ petition – Address of the petitioner in the
impugned order is itself wrong – Held, petitioner has remedy to prefer an appeal but
the period for preferring an appeal is sixty days – Impugned order has never been
served upon the petitioner – Petitioner is given liberty to approach the appropriate
appellate forum, within four weeks from today – Appellate Authority is directed to
decide the same on merit ignoring the ground of delay – Petitioner is also at liberty
to make prayer for interim protection before the appellate forum – Warrant of arrest
shall remain stayed till filing of the appeal. Paras 2, 4 and 6

For Petitioner: Mr. Deepak Kumar Sinha and Ms. Diksha Dwivedi, Advocates.

For Respondent (EPFO): Mr. Yogendra Prasad, Advocate.

IMPORTANT POINTS

The employer has remedy to prefer an appeal against the order passed by the EPF
Authority within prescribed limitation.
Period for preferring an appeal against the order of the EPF Authority is sixty days
which may be further extended upto 60 days subject to satisfaction of the Appellate
Authority on the basis of sufficient reason submitted by the employer.
Writ Court is empowered to give liberty to the aggrieved employer to approach the
appropriate appellate forum, even after expiry of prescribed limitation, if impugned
order was not delivered to the employer by the EPF Authority due to wrong address.
Additional time beyond, limitation is to be granted for filing appeal if order passed
under section 14B was never served upon the petitioner.

Judgment

Rajesh Kumar, J.–1. The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:–

(a) For quashing and setting aside the Order of Attachment of Bank Account
dated 20-06-2023 / 26-06-2023 (Annexure - 6) issued by the Respondent No. 2
to the Branch Manager, IDBI Bank, Bistupur Branch, Jamshedpur, mentioning
therein that the Petitioner is at default in remittance of the amount due to the
tune of Rs. 8,12,030/-, with a further direction to pay the said amount by way of

https://labourlawreporter.net/judgements/23493.htm 1/3
22/03/2024, 17:38 Labour Law Reporter
demand draft to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Jamshedpur,
whereas the admitted fact of the matter is that amount assessed under section
7A of the Employees Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952 to the
tune of Rs. 3,28,252/- as well as the demand of Rs. 3,35,452/- made under
section 7Q of the said Act, were paid by the Petitioner as back as in the year
2018 itself, therefore the aforesaid demand of Rs. 8,12,030/- appears to be
made under section 14B of the Act is illegal, arbitrary and has been made
without any complete violation of principles of natural justice, as neither any
notice regarding the same was ever issued upon the Petitioner nor copy of any
such order under section 14B of the Act, has been served upon the Petitioner and
as such the Petitioner deprive of filing appeal under section 7-I of the said Act
before the appropriate Court.

(b) For quashing and setting aside the Notice of Demand dated 25-04-2023
(Annexure - 2) issued by the Respondent No. 2, whereby the Petitioner was
directed to pay an amount of Rs. 11,47,576/- comprising of demand under
section 14B of the Act to the tune of Rs. 7,75,393/- and demand under section
7Q of the Act to the tune of Rs. 3,72,183/-, whereas the admitted fact of the
matter is that the Petitioner had already paid the amount of Rs. 3,35,452/- vide
DD No. 016309 dated 17-12-2018, and for the amount of Rs. 8,12,124/-
(wrongly mentioned as Rs. 7,75,393/-) determined under section 14B of the Act,
no notice at any proceeding under section 14B of the Act. no opportunity of
hearing and even no copy of any such order passed under the said section has
been provided to the Petitioner, and therefore the Petitioner has been deprived of
filing appeal under section 7-I of the said Act against any such order passed
under section 14B of the Act.

(c) For quashing and setting aside the Notice of Show Cause why a warrant of
arrest should not be issued dated 18-05-2023/ 25-05-2023 (Annexure - 4)
issued by the Respondent No. 2 whereby the Petitioner has been show caused as
to why the Petitioner should not be arrested and committed to the civil prison in
execution of the certificate dated 12-04-2023 to the tune of Rs. 11,47,576/-,
whereas the admitted fact of the matter is that the Petitioner had already paid
the amount determined under section 7Q of the Act on issuance of demand
notice including the demand assessed under section 7A of the Act, but no show
cause notice of any proceeding under section 14B of the Act, no opportunity of
hearing and even no copy of any such order passed under the said section has
been provided to the Petitioner.

(d) For a direction upon the Respondents to immediately provide the copies of
purported order, if any, passed by them under section 14B of the above Act, so
that the Petitioner may file appropriate appeal under section 7-I of the Act before
the appropriate Court/ Tribunal.

2. A supplementary counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent, on the direction,
bringing on record the order passed under section 14B of the Employees Provident Funds &
Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952, being Case Diary No. 005/ 2022. This is the reason
assigned for taking coercive action against the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has remedy of appeal,
but since this order has never been communicated to the petitioner and as such he has
approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

It has further been submitted that address of the petitioner showing in the order, passed
under section 14B of the said Act, is itself wrong.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the submission advanced by the learned
counsel for the petitioner.

https://labourlawreporter.net/judgements/23493.htm 2/3
22/03/2024, 17:38 Labour Law Reporter
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of record, it appears that the
petitioner has remedy to prefer an appeal, but the period for preferring an appeal is sixty
days. Since in the present case, the order passed under section 14B of the said Act has never
been served upon the petitioner and as such the petitioner is given liberty to approach the
appropriate appellate forum, within four weeks from today. If any such appeal is filed, the
authorities concerned are directed to decide the same on merit and not to dismiss the same
on the ground of delay.

The petitioner is also at liberty to make prayer for interim protection before the appellate
forum.

It further appears that for realization of the amount, warrant of arrest has already been
issued. The said warrant of arrest shall remain stayed till filing of the appeal, which is four
weeks from today .

6. With above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

7. Pending interlocutory application, if any, also stands disposed of.

Move to Top

https://labourlawreporter.net/judgements/23493.htm 3/3