Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2185 (JHR)

Frontline Business Solutions v. Union Of India

2018-10-01

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2018
ORDER Rajesh Shankar, J. - At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the defect as pointed out by the office is ignored for the present. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner in course of the argument confines his prayer to the extent of issuance of direction upon the respondents not to proceed with the recovery proceeding till disposal of the appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad, being Appeal No.ATA 1 of 2018, against the liability imposed upon the petitioner vide orders dated 31st October, 2017 (modified vide corrigendum contained in letter no.3672 dated 6th December, 2017) passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I, Bihar, Patna under Sections 14-B and 7-Q of the Employees'' Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter to be referred as ''the Act, 1952''). 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that an assessment proceeding was initiated against the petitioner under Section 7-A of the Act, 1952, wherein a liability of Rs. 37,63,966/- was imposed by the authority of the Employees Provident Fund Organization, which was deposited by the petitioner in full. However, subsequently, separate proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Sections 14-B and 7-Q of the Act, 1952. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I, Bihar, Patna vide order dated 31st October, 2017 fastened the liability of Rs. 1,47,33,440/- under Section 14-B of the Act, 1952. Moreover, a separate liability of Rs. 33,44,311/- was imposed upon the petitioner by the said authority under Section 7-Q of the Act, 1952 vide letter no.3373 dated 31st October, 2017 and corrigendum contained in letter no.3672 dated 6th December, 2017. It is further submitted that the petitioner has already deposited Rs. 30.00 lacs against the liability imposed under Section 14-B of the Act, 1952. It has also deposited the entire assessed amount under Section 7-Q of the Act, 1952. 4. However, aggrieved by the orders passed under Sections 14-B and 7-Q of the Act, 1952, the petitioner has preferred an appeal, along with stay application, before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad, which was registered as Appeal No.ATA 1 of 2018. It has also deposited the entire assessed amount under Section 7-Q of the Act, 1952. 4. However, aggrieved by the orders passed under Sections 14-B and 7-Q of the Act, 1952, the petitioner has preferred an appeal, along with stay application, before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad, which was registered as Appeal No.ATA 1 of 2018. The said appeal preferred by the petitioner has been admitted vide order dated 20th February, 2018, but, subsequently, the same has not been taken up by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad, as it is non-functional since the post of the Presiding Officer is vacant. In the meantime, the recovery proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner, which would be apparent from the letter dated 14th June, 2018, contained in letter no.1159 (Annexure-9) issued by the Recovery Officer, Bihar, Patna. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. It appears that the petitioner aggrieved by the orders dated 31st October, 2017 and 6th December, 2017 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I, Bihar, Patna under Section 14-B and 7-Q of the Act, 1952, respectively, has already preferred an appeal before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad. The petitioner has also averred in the writ petition that the petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs. 30.00 lacs out of liability fastened upon it under Sections 14-B of the Act, 1952 and has also deposited the entire amount assessed under Section 7-Q of the Act, 1952. The appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad is not being taken, as the same is presently non-functional as the post of the Presiding Officer is vacant. 6. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the recovery proceeding initiated by the Recovery Officer, Bihar, Patna in connection with certificate No.6103/457/2018 dated 10th April, 2018 shall remain stayed till the disposal of the stay application filed along with the appeal before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad. 7. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.