***

M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, CHIEF JUSTICE. –

This Writ petition is filed by the petitioner-Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner challenging the order dt. 24.03.2023 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Chandigarh (in short “the Tribunal), in appeal EPF no.148/2017.

2. The said appeal had been preferred by the respondent before the said Tribunal under Section 7-A of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (in short “the Act), challenging an order dt. 06.07.2016 passed by the petitioner under Section 14-B of the Act, levying an amount of Rs.24,38,147/- as damages under Section 14-B of the said Act and also interest of Rs.13,22,028/- under Section 7-Q of the said Act.

3. In the impugned order, the Appellate Tribunal reduced the amount of damages assessed to 20% of Rs.24,38,147/- i.e. to Rs.4,87,629/-, but refused to interfere with the direction of the petitioner made to the respondent to pay Rs.13,22,028/- under Section 7-Q of the Act towards interest.

4. Admittedly, the petitioner herein is a Quasi-Judicial Authority under the Act and he had passed the order on 06.07.2016 against the respondent which order came to be modified by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Chandigarh.

5. The question is:

“ whether such a Quasi-Judicial Authority can maintain such an appeal against the decision of the Appellate Authority, which has modified or set-aside its order at all?”.

6. This issue was considered by the Supreme Court in Mohtesham Mohd. Ismail vs. Spl. Director, Enforcement Directorate & Anr.¹ [¹(2007) 8 SCC 254].

7. The Supreme Court held in the said case that an Adjudicating Authority exercises a quasi-judicial power and discharges judicial functions. When its order has been set aside by an Appellate Authority, ordinarily in absence of any power to prefer an appeal, it cannot file such appeal under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 ; there has to be specific authorization to the appellant under the statute to file such appeals and merely because the petitioner was appointed for the purpose of acting in terms of the provisions of the Act, the same would not by itself entitle to an Officer to discharge all or any of the functions of the Central Government under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.

8. The Supreme Court held that even ordinarily a Quasi-Judicial Authority cannot prefer an appeal being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment of an Appellate Authority, whereby and where-under, its judgment has been set aside.

9. It held that an Adjudicating Authority, though an Officer of the Government, should act as an impartial Tribunal and such Adjudicating Authority, without any power conferred upon it under the statute to file appeal, cannot prefer any appeal.

10. Having regard to this settled legal position and in the absence of any specific power conferred under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 to challenge orders passed under Section 7-I of the Act by the Tribunal, the Writ petition filed by the Adjudicating Authority/Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner is not maintainable.

11. He therefore cannot approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and challenge the order passed by the Tribunal. So the instant Writ petition is dismissed being not maintainable.

12. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

Petition dismissed.

********