JUDGMENT Hon’ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Ankit Saran, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Sachindra Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. 2. The present writ petition is directed against the interim order dated 2.7.2018 passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal through its Presiding Officer, Udyog Nagar, Kanpur. 3. By means of the order impugned, the respondent No. 1 has directed the petitioners to deposit the amount of interest imposed under Section 7Q of the Employees’ Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (In short as “the Act”) within a period of three weeks from the date of the order, to maintain appeal against the order under Section 14-B readwith Section 7Q of the Act. 4. The facts relevant to decide the controversy in hand are that the proceedings under Section 7A of the Act was initiated against the petitioners for non-deposit of the dues of provident fund of 282 contract employees and the determination has finally been done. 5. Against the said order, the petitioners have filed a writ petition which is pending consideration. Indisputably, there is no interim order in favour of the petitioners. The deposit of EPF dues determined under Section 7A of the Act has thus been made on 1.10.2003. 6. The competent authority under the Act has initiated an enquiry under Section 14B of the Act. A composite notice showing the liability of the petitioners under Sections 14B and 7Q of the Act, 1952 has been served upon the petitioner. 7. The interest liability has been imposed for non-payment of EPF dues for the period from April, 1981 to March, 1999. 8. After consideration of the reply submitted by the petitioner, the order dated 2.5.2018 has been passed for imposition of penalty under Section 14B of the Act and determination of liability for interest under Section 7Q of the Act. 9. This order has been challenged in appeal wherein order impugned has been passed by respondent No. 1. 10. The petitioners have filed an application to pass the interim order which has been refused by the order dated 2.7.2018 on the ground that the petitioners are liable to deposit the amount of interest under Section 7Q of the Act, inasmuch as, the appeal is not maintainable without making the statutory deposits as required under Section 7-I of the Act. 11. This order is under challenge in the present writ petition. 11. This order is under challenge in the present writ petition. 12. The assertion of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Varanasi was not competent to pass composite order under Sections 14B and 7Q of the Act. He has wrongly proceeded to determine the interest liability of the petitioners while considering the question of imposition of penalty under Section 14-B of the Act. Further submission is that there is no requirement of pre-deposit for the penalty imposed under Section 14B of the Act in appeal and, therefore, the appellate authority cannot insist the petitioners to deposit the amount determined under Section 7Q of the Act. 13. Further contention is that separate notice before any determination under Section 7Q of the Act, was required to be given by the Assistant Provident Fund commissioner which has not been done. The order dated 2.5.2018, therefore, suffers from the violation of the principles of natural justice. 14. Submission is that without considering this aspect of the matter, the appellate authority could not have directed the petitioners to deposit the interest money. 15. This submission of learned counsel for the petitioners has been repelled by Sri Sachindra Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 with the assertion that the interest liability flows from the determination done under Section 7A of the Act and the said order has become final between the parties upto the appellate stage. 16. In the writ petition filed before this Court, no interim protection can be granted. The petitioner’s liability to pay interest under Section 7Q of the Act, flows automatically for the period of non-payment after the determination has been done under Section 7A of the Act. 17. Considering this submission of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, noticing the fact that the statutory deposits are required to be made for challenging any determination done under Section 7A of the Act in appeal under Section 7-I of the Act, the contention of the petitioners that the requirement of the deposits in a challenge made to the determination of interest liability cannot be insisted upon, is wholly misconceived. 18. The petitioners are, therefore, held liable to deposit the amount of interest imposed under Section 7Q of the Act, in order to maintain the appeal to challenge the said order. 19. 18. The petitioners are, therefore, held liable to deposit the amount of interest imposed under Section 7Q of the Act, in order to maintain the appeal to challenge the said order. 19. All objections taken by the petitioners herein above are open to be taken up before the appellate Court. However, it is kept open for the petitioners to move an application before the appellate authority for relaxation in pre-deposits or grant of sufficient time for making such objections, which may be dealt in accordance with law. 20. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.