@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
A.S. Bopanna, J.—Petitioner is before this Court assailing the provisions contained in Section 7(O) of the Employees Provident Fund Act (for short ''the Act�) and also is seeking a mandamus to direct the Central Government to notify the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court in the State of Karnataka to be the Appellate Tribunal for the purpose of the Act.
2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order at Annexure-E whereby the liability to pay the provident fund has been imposed on the petitioner. However, the petitioner though aggrieved by such order finds that the alternate remedy provided under the Act under Section 7(i) to file an appeal before the Tribunal is not an efficacious remedy so far as the petitioner is concerned since the only Tribunal for the purpose is at Delhi. It is in that light, the petitioner claims that the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court in the State of Karnataka be given the powers as an Appellate Tribunal so that the petitioner and the similarly placed persons, who are aggrieved by any orders to be challenged in the Tribunal by way of an appeal could assail such orders. In that light itself, petitioner also contends that the provision for deposit of 75% is also burdensome on the petitioner and therefore, the said provision be struck out.
3. At this juncture, the first issue that arises to be taken note is with regard to the constitution of the ''Tribunal which would be accessible to the persons claiming to be aggrieved by the order regarding which an appeal has been provided. Though the petitioner herein has specifically sought that the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court be granted the powers of the Appellate Tribunal, the said issue heed not be adverted to in detail since establishment of a Tribunal on regional basis had arisen for consideration in W.P. (Civil) No. 999/2014 before the Hon�ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Tasty Nut Industries v. Union of India and others. The Hon�ble Supreme Court by its order dated 20.03.2015 on taking note of the submission of the Solicitor General, has directed that the Tribunal be constituted at Bangalore. Until the Tribunal is constituted, in respect of the appellants who have filed appeals before the Tribunal at Delhi, it is directed that no precipitative action be taken against the appellants. Therefore, if the said direction is taken into consideration, prayer as made in the instant petition would stand answered, insofar as the Constitution of the Appellate Tribunal at Bangalore, which would be accessible to the petitioner and would form an efficacious forum for availing remedy of appeal to assail the order by which the petitioner is aggrieved, namely, the order impugned at Annexure-E to the petition. In that light, what is to be considered is with regard to the manner in which the right of the petitioner is to be regulated.
4. Though the petitioner has not approached the Tribunal at Delhi, at the first instance itself the petitioner had filed the instant petition claiming that such appeal before the Tribunal at Delhi is not an efficacious remedy and it is in that light, the instant petition had been entertained and has been pending for more than a decade. The benefit of the interim order had been granted to the petitioner. If that be the position, when the petitioner would have the benefit of filing an appeal when the Tribunal is constituted at Bangalore and since the instant petition hod been entertained before this Court, the need to direct the petitioner to file an appeal before the Tribunal at Delhi during the interregnum only to await the constitution of the Tribunal at Bangalore would not be justified.
5. Hence, the appropriate course would be to dispose of this petition and reserve liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal within a period of 45 days from the date the Tribunal is constituted at Bangalore in terms of the direction issued by the Hon�ble Supreme Court. Until the constitution of the Tribunal and the appeal being filed by the petitioner, the petitioner shall enjoy the benefit of the interim order which had been granted and as such the respondent is directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner.
6. Insofar as the grievance put forth by the petitioner seeking that the provision contained under Section 7(o) of the Act be struck down, the same is left open at this stage and liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file an appropriate application before the Tribunal when it is constituted for waiver of deposit. If at that stage any grievance arises to the petitioner when such application is disposed of, liberty would be available to assail the same in accordance with law and seek all reliefs therein.
7. In terms of the above observations and directions, the petition stands disposed of.
8. Since this Court has reserved liberty to the petitioner to approach the Tribunal as and when it is constituted, registry shall return the original papers, if any sought for by the petitioner, by substituting the same with copies of same.
