IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R. DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO.58209/2018(L-PF) BETWEEN AMAZON SELLER SERVICES PVT LTD HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 8TH FLOOR, BRIGADE GATEWAY, 26/1, DR.RAJKUMAR ROAD, BENGALURU-560 055 REP. BY. ITS SENIOR CORPORATE COUNSEL MR.PRITHWISH BHATTACHARYA (BY SRI SRIBHOOMI YESASWINI K, ADVOCATE) AND EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN #13, RAJARAM MOHAN ROY BANGALORE-560 025 REP BY ITS THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER-I SMT.C.AMUDHA (BY SMT NANDITA HALDIPUR, ADVOCATE) ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AND EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DATED 14.12.2018 AT ANNEXURE-B IN APPEAL NO.139/2018 DATED 14.12.2018 AT ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
I.A.No.1/2019 is filed by the petitioner seeking several prayers, which prima facie cannot be entertained. Therefore, the learned Counsel restricts the prayer in I.A.No.1/2019 to the first prayer i.e., to direct the respondent to return the amount that was attached from its bank accounts i.e., Rs.1,58,42,777/-.
2. Learned Counsel submits that this Court by order dated 03.01.2019 had granted an ad-interim order of stay of the impugned order dated 15.11.2018 at Annexure ‘C’ till the next date of hearing. The said order was extended on 14.03.2019 and subsequent dates. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that though this Court had granted an ad-
interim order on 03.01.2019, however, on the very same day, the respondent attached the said amount from the bank account of the petitioner. Learned Counsel had already submitted before this Court and this Court had taken note of the fact that the petitioner had already approached the jurisdictional Tribunal under Section 7-I of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.
3. Learned Counsel for the respondent would submit that the respondent was not aware of the interim order that was passed on 03.01.2019. The learned Counsel submits that the respondent was not served with the copies of the appeal or the writ petition and therefore, the attachment was made in the regular course.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that second proviso to Sub-rule (2) of Rule-7 of the Employees’ Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997 would provide that no appeal by the employer shall be entertained by a Tribunal unless he has deposited with the Tribunal a Demand Draft payable in the fund and bearing 75 percent of the amount due from him as determined under Section 7A. Learned Counsel submits that the Rule does not require similar deposit to be made in the case of Section 14B.
5. In that view of the matter, the respondent is directed to return the amount attached from the Bank account of the petitioner i.e., the sum of Rs.1,58,42,777/- forthwith. I.A.1/19 stands disposed of.
6. At this juncture, the learned Counsel for the Respondent would submit that this petition itself may not survive for consideration, in view of the directions given to the respondent herein to return the amount which was attached, since the petitioner is already before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court and the Employees’ Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore challenging the order, since they have already questioned the order dated 15.11.2018 passed by the respondent herein.
7. The petition is accordingly disposed of as having become infructuous. The interim order of stay granted by this Court earlier shall continue till the next date of hearing fixed by the Tribunal in Appeal No.139/2018.
SD/- JUDGE JT/-