EN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.NO. .5^1-1 / 2004 Petitioner M/s Ken Memorial Chiistiaii English Higher Secondary School through its Principal Kududaiid, Bilaspm-(C.G.) i6:^ };\ Versus ....•^€ Respondents ^ ^ ^:.^^ 1- The Regional Provident Fimd Commissioner, ?.°</^:'' f.;-(l"c^'^ Regional Office, Raipur-(C.G.) ,..-'^"^:'*- / .< »c^\^ / .^^\.^> / 2. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, ^ ^^ WRIT PETITIQN U/A Regional Office, Raipur-(C.G.) > / 227'OF' 'OFTHECONSTITUTIQNOFINDIA 4-ia) \. 'y XI-HC—78 ^i- 1i^^1^?^lfe ^^l^ I^CT' w& ®^r ^ -ys^ -.^p^fZT^ •®^Te7ra',T^TRTy ^-f- .^\.. 3?1^T^^( ^) ^m^» ^ ^3JtR%1^ 17/01/2005:- Shri P.S. Koshy learned couns^l for the petitioner. Shri Pradeep Saxena learned 4ounsel for respondents 1 and 2. Heard. The submission of the leafned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the petitioner's Est^blishment is a Christian Minority Educational Institution and is co1 Employees' Provident Funds & Misc^llaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short "the Acr). It is submitted that the provident fund contribution of tlfe employees at the Govemment rate i.e. 8% which was applicabl^ in all the State Government Establishments including that of tt|ie private aided and non-aided institutions. The contribution was bs account exclusiveiy maintained for /ered under the provisions of the Establishment was deducting ing deposited in a separate bank the provident fund which was opened in the State Bank of India, Collectorate Branch, Bilaspur. Further submission of the learned tfounsel is that subsequently, the provident fund authorities issued a jnotice and instructed the school authorities that depositing and mEiintaining of the provident fund 1 contribution in the bankaccount wa^ not proper and the same should actually be deposited with the resporjdent organization in the separate account. Thereafter the school aut^orities vide demand draft dated 23/07/2002 deposited a sum pf Rs.2,38,933.87 in the office of respondents organization under the (pode No.11481, granted to them. !t is further submitted that since th^re was delay on the part of the petitjoner's estabiishment in deducti^ the contribution and depositjng the same with the authorities, the (fovident fund authority arbitrarily u^ XI-HC—78 ^TTqM^, '^ra'^ 'f^rray .^..•£•.........^.1.. ^ ^i^i^?1^TN? •^^w^^iN? "^ ^N^h ^ Tf^x ^>3t1^i3??^l imposed the amount of damage^ (Annexure-P/1). The said order wa^ Act. During the course of argumerj effect that the order (Annexure-P/1)| which is functioning at Delhi. After| that the order passed under Section 1 Section 7-1 of the Act before the Tribunal. Since an alternate remedy was availabte to the petitioner, the ^ vide order dated 13/10/2003 ? made under Section 14-B ofthe its, an objection was raised to the is appealable before the Tribunal perusal of the order, it transpires 4-B of the Act is appealable under .ame was brought to the notice of stitioner. Learned counsel further learned counsei appearing for the submits that at the time of filing of tljie petition, the Presiding OfRcer of the Tribunal was not available, thei|efore, the matters were not taken up. He submits that now the PresiKing OfRcer is available and some ^ time may be given to the petitjone^f|ing an appeal before the Tribunal. Learned counsel aiso prays that sin4e the authorities have also started proceedings under Section 8-F of th^ Act regarding recovery and some coercive steps are to be taken aga|ist the petitioner, some protective orders may be passed so that the pdtitioner may reach the Tribunal and pray for issuance of some interim ord^r in his favour. In the opinion of this Court.j counsel appearing for the petition^r prayer is allowed. The petitioner i| Tribunal in accordance wjth iaw. respondents shall not take any regarding the recovery of the the prayer made by the tearned seems to be reasonable. The free to file an appeal before the However, it is directed that the co^rcive steps against the petitioner afor^mentioned amount for a period of (^x) Xi-HC—78 3^[ ^qpTi^T^^ ^l^m^, M^iray aj.f. ^- i ^ (-rt^^) ^ ^P-?i -^- ^ Tf^r< '^^?mW^T sixty days from today. It is expectec| before the Tribunal during the said shall lose its efficacy after the automaticaJly. that the petitioner shall file appeat beriod. This order of interim relief |said sixty days' period from today afordsaid With the aforesaid observatiofis, the petition stands disposed of finally. Let certified copy of this orde rules. be supplied to the parties as per Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge ^y^4^- SBS® ^ -s- ^'