Madras HC: Orders passed under EPF Act should be kept in abe

The Madras High Court has made it clear that orders passed under the EPF Act and consequential orders of attachment, if any, issued by the EPFO, should be kept in abeyance under certain circumstances. The circumstances were- during the period of limitation prescribed under the EPF Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules and EPF Act for preferring an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal or during the period of pendency of review petition before the authority and till the date of first actual hearing of the waiver petition filed along with the appeal before the tribunal. Disposing a petition, before parting with the matter, Justice K N Basha said the court was constrained to state that in view of the orders of attachment, which were being passed even prior to the expiry of the period of appeal and revision, the High Court was flooded with petitions. Therefore, in order to avoid the frequent filing of similar petitions and also with a view to securing the interests of the petitioner and the EPFO, the court was constrained to clarify it. Pyramid Saimira Theatre Limited filed a Writ petition seeking to forbear EPFO from initiating recovery proceedings against it, including recovery proceedings issued to the bank and lift the attachment in respect of the company’s current account. The company also sought a direction to the EPFO to permit it to pay the admitted amount of contribution in monthly installments. After hearing S Ravindran, petitioner’s counsel and S Vaidyanathan, EPFO counsel, Justice Basha said the petitioner had preferred a review application challenging the impugned order of EPFO of May this year. Pursuant to the order, attachment proceedings had been initiated. The Judge said no prejudice would be caused to the EPFO if an order was passed by the court to lift the attachment order and also to pass an order to the effect of keeping the attachment order in abeyance till the disposal of the review application and, thereafter, preferring of appeal before the tribunal on the condition that the petitioner paid the admitted amount to the EPFO pursuant to the original order of May. Considering the submission that the company had paid Rs 55.03 lakh and the remaining sum was Rs 73.82 lakh and that a substantial amount had been paid by the petitioner, the court was constrained to direct the petitioner to pay the balance amount in ten equal installments from August. In the event of the petitioner’s failure to comply with the condition, it was open to the authorities concerned to proceed with the attachment proceedings, the judge said.

"Loved reading this piece by M. PIRAVI PERUMAL?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"

Join our Telegram group

Join our Whatsapp group