EPF Act | Quasi-Judicial Authority Can't Defend Its Own Order In Appeal By Stepping Into Shoes Of Party To The Lis: Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court has held that Quasi-Judicial authorities under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act cannot defend their own orders in appeal by stepping into the shoes of a party to the lis.The respondent (in the appeal) is an 'Employer' of an Establishment under section 2(e) of the Act. Proceedings were initiated against the employer under section 7A by way of a notice dated 25.05.2022 determining the dues payable by the employer for the period from April, 2021 to November, 2021 and wages amounting to Rs.1,34,961 as balance.Appellant No. 1–Regional Provident Fund Commissioner under section 7A determined that the Employer should pay the balance amount of Rs.52,51,686 for the specified period. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner directed the Employer of the Establishment to pay the amount within 15 days. Against this the Employer moved the appellant no. 3–Presiding Officer of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court in appeal. In the appeal, the Employer filed applications for waiver of the pre-deposit condition under section 7-O and also for stay of the operation of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner's order dated 08.08.2024 till disposal of appeal. The Presiding Officer of the Tribunal disposed of the applications holding that the appeal would be admitted subject to remittance of 30% of the determined amount under section 7A within six weeks upon submission on record of the proof of remittance. Against this the Employer moved a writ petition before the single judge, which permitted the respondent-Employer to remit 15% of the determined amount under section 7A before the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal within four weeks. Against this reduction from 30% to 15% the appellant authorities approached the division bench. The division bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar said:“Further, the appellants are delegatees of the Central Government for the purpose of implementing the provisions of the 1952 Act. In other words, the appellants can only act on behalf of the Central Government and not otherwise. The appellants, on the strength of being delegatees for discharging the functions of the Central Government, cannot claim an automatic entitlement to challenge the order passed by the learned Single Judge without any express power conferred by the Statute in that regard. The appellants are quasi-judicial authorities and must act as an impartial Tribunal under the 1952 Act. The appellants must also establish a specific grievance or dissatisfaction caused as a result of the order passed by the learned Single Judge.”"In essence, to be categorized as an 'aggrieved party', the appellants' interests must have been adversely affected by the adjudication and they must show that the appellants, in their individual capacities, have been deprived of a right by way of the said adjudication. In the present case, the appellants cannot step into the shoes of a party to the dispute since none of the appellants are a party to the lis," the bench added. The bench said that none of the three appellants can claim to be parties aggrieved, as understood in Writ jurisprudence and that they are statutory Authorities under the 1952 Act and hence any contention of individual or collective grievance against reduction of the pre-deposit amount payable by the Employer is totally untenable and without basis."The argument of 'loss of revenue' is vague and without any clarity as to who will suffer the 15% differential loss as a consequence of the impugned order. We could have understood if the employees of the establishment were the bearers of the loss or any of the appellant/Officer in his/her personal capacity. However, the appellants, being quasi-judicial authorities, cannot claim any personal injury caused by the reduction of the quantum of pre-deposit," the court said. The appellant authorities further contended that they had rightly calculated the dues payable by the employer/respondent under section 7A and the single judge had erred, in reducing the pre-deposit amount to 15%.The bench however said that the order of the authority "does not contain even a solitary reason" for remittance of 30% as required under the proviso to section 7-O of the 1952 Act. It said that section 7-O entails that the pre-deposit can be waived or reduced only where the reasons for such waiver/reduction which recorded in writing. Noting that a plain reading of the statute would make it evident that the Tribunal was entitled to waive off the entire amount if it deemed fit the court said:“The grounds are wholly superfluous and distanced from the issue at hand. The alleged violation of statutory discipline, presumably under section 7-O of the 1952 Act (Ground-V) is misconceived since the proviso to section 7-O authorizes the Tribunal not only to reduce the pre-deposit amount but to waive it altogether. Hence, the argument of the so called...

EPF Act | Quasi-Judicial Authority Can't Defend Its Own Order In Appeal By Stepping Into Shoes Of Party To The Lis: Telangana High Court

Fareedunnisa Huma

Tags