Pune Mahanagar Parivahan v. Union of India & Ors.

Heard Mr. Ketkar the learned counsel for the petitioner - Corporation and Mr. Suresh Kumar the learned counsel for the respondent no.3.

Register.

By an order dated 18/7/2007 passed under Section 14-B of the Employees’ Provident Fund and :2: Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short the Act), the petitioner - Corporation has been directed to remit an amount of Rs.2,03,85,171/- by way of damages for the period from March 2000 to February 2006 and against the said order, a representation was submitted to the Chairman, Central Board of Trustees, Employees’ Provident Fund and Minister for State for Labour and Employment, Government of India on 6/10/2007 praying for waiver under Para 32-B of the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme and by the communication dated 7/12/2007 the Director, (Recovery) from the office of respondent no.2 has informed the petitioner that the request for waiver has been turned down and subsequently by an order dated 28/2/2008, the respondent no.3 has called upon the petitioner to pay the said amount within seven days. On the same day i.e. on 28/2/2008 the respondent no.3 has passed yet another order levying damages under Section 14-B to the tune of Rs.3,05,482/- and the interest payable under Section 7-Q has been calculated at Rs.2,08,871/-. Thus the total recovery against the petitioner, as of now, under Section 14-B of the Act goes to Rs.2,08,99,525/-. By order dated 17/3/2008 :3: the respondent no.3 directed the Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Pimpri Branch, Pune in exercise of his powers under Section 8-F(3)(1) of the Act to pay a sum of Rs.2,08,99,525/- and until then the account has been seized.

Mr. Ketkar the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on or about 12/3/2008, the petitioner - Corporation has submitted a review petition under Section 7-B of the Act against the orders dated 18/7/2007 and 28/2/2008 and, in the meanwhile, the order dated 17/3/2008 has been passed. He, therefore, prays for stay to the order dated 17/3/2008 and further directions to the respondents to decide the purported review petition submitted on 12/3/2008 within a fixed time.

Mr. Suresh Kumar the learned counsel for the respondent no.3, by referring to the scheme of Section 7-B of the Act, has pointed out that there is no review maintainable against an order passed under Section 14-B of the Act and the only remedy available to the petitioner - Corporation is to file an appeal :4: under Section 7-I of the Act before the Appellate Tribunal.

The only question that requires consideration is, whether the petitioner - Corporation is eligible for waiver under any of the Clauses of Para 32-B of the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme 1952 and Mr. Ketkar referred to the GR dated 19/4/2007 issued by the Government of Maharashtra in support of his contention that the Corporation’s case for waiver deserves to be considered under the second part of Clause - a or in the alternative Clause - C of Para 32-B of the Scheme. This is an issue which will have to be gone into by the Appellate Tribunal as and when the petitioner - Corporation files an appeal. Mr. Ketkar stated that such an appeal will be preferred within a period of two weeks from today and in the meanwhile he prayed for stay to the order dated 17/3/2008 passed by the respondent no.3.

A copy of this order be forwarded to the Central Bank of India, Pimpri Branch, as well as the Camp Branch, Pune.

Parties to act on the basis of an authenticated copy of this order. (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)