MOHLE v. Employees Provident Fund Organization Regional Office, D-Block, Scheme
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
petition stands dismissed
Provisions considered
Judgment
For Petitioners : Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Senior Advocate with For Respondents : Mr. Ajay Kumar Dwivedi, Advocate Mr. Udit Khatri, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board
07.01.2025 1) Heard on admission. 2) With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. -2- 3) The petitioner/Guru Ghasidas Vishwavidyalaya (for short “the University”) has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 03.10.2024 (Annexure P/1) passed under Section 14B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short “the Act, 1952”) assessing the dues amounting to Rs. 1,36,96,925/-/- for the period from
01.10.2009 to 31.08.2018, and the order dated 04.10.2024 (Annexure P/2) passed under Section 7-Q of the Act, 1952 whereby respondent No. 2 has assessed the interest amount of Rs. 1,34,68,457/-. 4) Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a Central University constituted under the Central Universities Act, 2009. He further submits that the impugned orders have been passed in contravention of Sections 14-B and 7-Q of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. He also contends that the respondent authorities passed the orders without considering the contentions raised by the petitioner-University in its replies/objections from time to time, pursuant to the notices/summons issued by the respondent authorities It is further submitted that the impugned orders were passed without jurisdiction in view of the provisions of Section 16(1)(c) of the Act, 1952.
It is also stated that the petitioner has filed a review petition (No. -3- 34556/2024, Diary No. 34556/2024) before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the order dated 19.01.2024 passed in SLP(C) No./Diary No. 42288/2023, raising the issue of jurisdiction, and the same is pending consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is stated that this argument was also advanced before the EPFO during the course of the inquiry, but the same was not considered by the respondent authorities; thus, he prays that the impugned orders may be quashed. 5) On the other hand, Mr. Ajay Kumar Dwivedi submits that against the orders impugned, an appeal would lie before the learned Appellate Tribunal according to Section 7-I of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. 6) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on the file. 7) In the present case, the orders passed under Sections 14-B and 7-Q of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, are appealable one, and against such orders, the provision of appeal is provided under Section 7-I of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.
Operative part
Therefore, the writ petitioner- University ought to have preferred an appeal before the learned Appellate Tribunal constituted under Section 7-I of the Act. 8) Admittedly, no such appeal has been filed by the writ petitioner-University -4- and the disputed facts and issues raised regarding the recovery of damages and interest part cannot be adjudicated in a writ proceeding. All such disputed facts are to be adjudicated with reference to the original documents and the evidence available, which cannot be undertaken by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed. However, the petitioner-University is at liberty to prefer an appeal before the learned Appellate Tribunal. 9) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the orders passed by the respondent authorities under Sections 7-Q and 14-B of the Act, 1952. It is for the learned Appellate Tribunal to decide the case of the petitioner in accordance with law, on its own merits, without being influenced by any observations made by this Court while deciding this writ petition. 10) No order as to cost(s). (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Sd/- Nadim
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: petition stands dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Central Universities Act, 2009; Constitution of India — art. 226.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.