M/S. ARCOT TEXTILE MILLS LTD. versus THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER AND ORS.

Citation: [2013] 11 S.C.R. 371 · Decided: 18-10-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ANIL R. DAVE · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 11 S.C.R. 371 
M/S. ARCOT TEXTILE MILLS LTD. 
v. 
THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER 
AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 9488 of 2013) 
OCTOBER 18, 2013 
[ANIL R. DAVE AND. DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] 
Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous 
Provisions Act, 1950: 
A 
B 
c 
s. 71 and 7Q - Appeal u/s. 71 - Against the order passed 
uls. 7Q - Maintainability of - Held: An order is amenable to 
appeal u/s. 71 if it is passed as a composite order u/ss. 7 A 
and 7Q - But if the order is an independent order uls. 7Q D 
alone, such order is not appealable. 
s. 7Q - Demand uls. 7Q - Applicability of principie of 
natural justice (Audi alteram partem) - Held: The principle of 
natural justice is applicable to the demand uls. 7Q only in a 
narrow manner i.e. limited to the realm of computation which 
E 
is statutorily provided - Principle of Natural Justice. 
Appeal ~ Right to appeal - Held: Cannot be assumed 
to exist unless expressly provided for by a statute. 
Maxim - Audi alteram partem - Applicability of. 
F 
The questions for consideration in the present appeal 
were whether an appeal is maintainable against an order 
passed uls. 7Q of Employees' Provident Funds and 
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, and whether the G 
principles of natural justice would· get attracted, when in 
independent exercise of power under s. 7Q of the Act, a 
demand comes into existence. 
371 
H 
372 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 11 S.C.R. 
A 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. On a perusal of s.71 of Employees 
Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, 
it is evident that an appeal to the tribunal lies in respect 
8 
of certain action of the Central Government or order 
passed by the Central Government or any authority on 
certain provisions of the Act. Though an appeal lies 
against recovery of dam~ges under Section 148 of the 
Act, no appeal is provided for against imposition of 
interest as stipulated under Section 7Q. Section 148 has 
C 
been enacted to penalize the defaulting employers as 
also to provide reparation for the amount of loss suffered 
by the employees. It is not only a warning to employers 
in general not to commit a breach of the statutory 
requirements but at the same time it is meant to provide 
D compensation or redress to the beneficiaries, i.e., to 
recompense the employees for the loss sustained by 
them. The entire amount of damages awarded under 
Section 148 except for the amount relatable to 
administrative charges is to be transferred to the 
E 
Employees' Provident Fund. [Para 15] [383-G-H; 384-A-C] 
F 
Organo Chemical Industries and Anr. vs. Union of India 
and Ors. AIR 1979 SC 1803: 1980 (1) SCR 61 - relied on. 
1.2. It is clear and unambiguous that s. 71 does not 
provide for an appeal against the determination made 
under 7Q. It is well settled in law that right of appeal is a 
creature of statute, for the right of appeal inheres in no 
one and, therefore, for maintainability of an appeal there 
must be authority of law. This being the position a 
G provision providing for appeal should neither be 
construed too strictly nor too liberally, for if given either 
of these extreme interpretations, it is bound to adversely 
affect the legislative object as well as hamper the 
proceedings before the appropriate forum. A right of 
H 
ARCOT TEXTILE MILLS LTD. v. REGIONAL 
373 
PROVIDENT FUND COMMNR. 
appeal cannot be assumed to exist unless expressly 
A 
provided for by the statute and a remedy of appeal must 
be legitimately traceable to the statutory provisions. If the 
express words employed in a provision do not provide 
an appeal from a particular order, the court is bound to 
follow the express words. An appeal for its maintainability 
B 
must have the clear authority of law and that explains 
why the right of appeal is described as a creature of 
statute. [Para 17) [385-A-D] 
Ganga Bai vs. Vijay Kumar and Ors. (1974) 2 SCC 393: 
1974 (3) SCR 882; Gujarat Agro Industries Co. Ltd. vs. 
C 
Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmadabad and Ors. 
(1999) 4 SCC 468: 1999 (2) SCR 895; State of Haryana vs. 
Maruti Udyog Ltd. and Ors. (2000) 7 SCC 348: 2000 (3) 
Suppl. SCR 185; Super Cassettes Industries Limited vs. 
State of U.P. and Anr. (2009) 10 sec 531: 2009 (14) SCR 
D 
627; Raj Kumar Shivhare vs. Assistant Director, Directorate 
of Enforcement and Anr. (2010) 4 SCC 772: 2010 (4) SCR 
608; Competition Commission of India vs. Steel Authority of 
India Limited and Anr. (2010) 10 SCC 7
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.