3 ^c4- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH Petitioner: WritPetitionNo. <'3Se G of2003 / IBP Company Ltd. (An Indian Oil Group Company) Business Group Chemicals through its Chief Manager, P.0. Jamnipali District Korba (CG) Versus ..^. Respondents: ^^^. Union of India, through the Secretary, /\^.-g^' Ministry of Labour "Shram Bhavan", ^^y^^ New Delhi 2. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional Office, Raipur (CG) . ••••"".^\c^' ^^•y' '^y PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 22^/227 OF THE CQNSTITUTION OF INDIA. ^ ^ XI-HG—78 -3??^I^T^i^ ^^^¥r^?N- '\ ^' ^IN^W "^W^s ^^ '^Tf^T^R, iNNFT^, 1^1T€a3T ..:.f.:..^..€c>..^:fi0^.. uo ^9? Crt^r) I^T^^^^T^T 06/02/2004 Shri P,S. Koshy, cou4sel for fhe petitioner, Shri V.V.S. Murthy, for Uiiion of India/respond^nt no, 1, Shri Pi'adeep Saxena, situation, chaUengiag fhe Fund and MisceUaneousi ^ f^zt ^e4iw3:rT^T |AddL Central Govt Staadiag Counsel counsel for the respondent lio.2. Petitioner/Conipaay Jias preferred fhis writ petition under Ardcle 226/227 of the Con^titution of India, ia soniewhat peculiar orclcr passed by respondent no,2 Regional Provident Fuud (pommissioner, Regional Office, Raipur dated 09/06/2003 under ^ection 14-B oftlie Employees Pi-ovident Act, 1952, whereby fhe learaed i^d penalty of Rs.6,61,407/- on fhe PIC provident fund ofcontdbution was fie settlement anived on 24/03/2001 Commissioner has impos ground that the arrears of not deposited ia view of witiiiii a period of 15 days. Leamed couusel for pie petitioner siibniits that the order is appeUable aad subinits l|iat fhe appeal has already been filed before the Eniployees Prov^dcnt Fund AppcUate Tribunal at Delhi, He fmther submits that a^ tlie Presidiag Officer of tiie AppeUate Tribunal has not been app<|mted smce last one yeai', tliercfore, tlie urgent hearm.gs ofthe stayj appUcations are not beiag takeu up by .the AppeUate TribunaA, FJIe furfher subiaits that till fhe appeal is taken up aad after apponi|inent of fhc Presidiag OfGicer and stay appUcation is decided, re^pondent no.2 be dii'ected not to adopt tlie coercive inethods for r^coveiy of tlie penalty as per Annexiire P/ 1. Ab uu Pji^i,lding-6^>e¥-®^^e-A^p^a.te-3^buaaU&- .chair ^ XI-HC—78 3??^r -^f ^srr l3Ti^r ^'^N- ^^ y/ /^ ^. ^^ ^ ^IN^SS ^sHI^? -s-^ ~^{^M^, ^^wj^, f^rray .LC..£:..AJ.o.;..l^.^./.^ (^f^^) ^^rw^cr^m^ 'RTH^^f ^ fe'^1' I.I^I'^R tr and in this situatiou fhe i petitioner seeins to be fait^ stay applications are takeli up for hearmg, the respondent no.2 is directed not to adopt fhi coercive methods for recoveiy of tiie penalty amouiit as per A4nexure P/ 1, I am of tlie opiiiion ttiat it would be just and prope^ regard to tfie facts aii^ ^round rai^ed by leanied couusel for the aad reasonable aad tiU that appeal and lookiag to fhe ground situation of the inatter, Haviag hcard the le^raed counsel for fhc parties aiicl haviag circumstfflices as mentioned above, respondent no.2 is direct^d not to adopt tiie coercive methocls for recoveiy of the penalty aii^ount as per Annexure P/ 1 tiU fhe urgent stay appUcation is take^i up for heariiig aiid order is passed by the AppcUate Tribunal. Witli fhe aforcsaid petition staiids disposed obseryations aad directions, this writ |)f. Consequentiy, M.W.P.No.3175/2003 and I.A.No. 10051/2003 s^so stand disposed of. Parties are entitled f^r certified copy of tliis order, Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge