Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Ltd., Kadapa v. The Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Sub-Regional office, 1/30, R.S.Road, Kadapa
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to comply with
Provisions considered
Judgment
Cause title
Kadapa rep.by its Suptd., Engineer, TL & SS Circle, Mr.M.Krishna Murthy, S/o.Sri N.Balaiah, R/o.Kadapa. AND The Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Sub-Regional office, 1/30, R.S.Road, Kadapa rep. by its Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner. ..... PETITIONER
RESPONDENT
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order direction or writ particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the order in A.T.A. No.278(1)/2005 on the file of the E.P.E. Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in so far as directing the petitioner to deposit 50% of the determined amount in pursuance of the proceedings of the respondent in order NO.AP/SRO/CP/AP/43231/ENF.III/SRO/CDP/2005/848 dated: 11-3-2005 as illegal and consequently set aside the same and pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondent: MR.R.N.REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE G.ROHINI
WRIT PETITION NO.8291 OF 2005
ORDER:
Operative part
This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal at New Delhi in A.T.A.No.278(1)/2005 dated 23-3-2005 whereunder the Tribunal entertained the Appeal filed by the petitioner against the determination made under Section 7-A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short, ‘the Act’) subject to the condition of depositing 50% of the determined amount. The contention of the petitioner is that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the nature of the controversy involved, the Tribunal ought to have entertained the Appeal completely waiving the amount to be deposited. I do not find any substance in the said contention. It is not in dispute that as per the provisions of Section 7-O of the Act, no Appeal by the employer shall be entertained by a Tribunal unless he has deposited 75% of the amount due from him as determined under Section 7-A of the Act. It is true that the proviso to Section 7-O of the Act empowers the Tribunal for reasons to be recorded in writing to waive or reduce the amount to be deposited. In the case on hand, the Tribunal having exercised such discretion thought it fit to direct deposit of 50% instead of 75%. Since the Appellate Tribunal having taken a liberal view, reduced the amount from 75% to 50%, I do not see any justifiable reason to interfere with such discretionary order. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to grant some more time to comply with the condition imposed under the impugned order. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to comply with the impugned order dated 23-03-2005 within a period of four weeks from today. If such amount is deposited within the time granted above, the Appeal shall be entertained and the operation of the order passed under Section 7-A of the Act shall remain stayed during the pendency of the Appeal. No costs. __________________ 15th April, 2005. ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // To SECTION OFFICER 1) The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Sub-Regional office, 1/30, R.S.Road, Kadapa. 2) CD copies
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to comply with
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.