The High Court · 2023
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction) LPA No. 32 of 2019 Employees Provident Fund Organization, through Prabhat Sinha, aged about 59 years, son of late K.N.Sinha, presently posted as Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Legal) (on behalf of CBT, EPF), Regional Office, Ranchi, situated at Bhagirathi Complex, PO and PS Lalpur, District Ranchi ......Appellant Versus 1.DAV Nandraj Public School, Ranchi through Rajendra Kumar Arya, son of Tekchandra Arya, president of DAV Nandraj Public School having its office at DAV Public School, Bardwan Compound, PO and PS Lalpur, District Ranchi 2.The Principal, DAV Nandraj Public School, Lalpur, Ranchi having its office at DAV Public School, Bardwan Compound, PO and PS Lalpur, District Ranchi 3.DAV Nandraj Public School, Bariatu, Ranchi having its office at DAV Public School, Bariatu, PO and PS Bariatu, District Ranchi ..... Respondents ---------------
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA For the Appellant For the Respondents : Mr. Rupesh Singh, Advocate : Mr. M. P. Srivastava, Advocate Mr. Ashutosh Anand, Advocate Mr. Rishi Bharti, Advocate Mr. Sahbaj Akhtar, Advocate ---------------
Decision
O R D E R 16th June 2023 Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, J. The Employees Provident Fund Organization (in short, 'EPF') is aggrieved by the order dated 3rd October 2018 passed in WP(C) No. 2863 of 2017. 2. Before the writ Court the order dated 10th April 2017 passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (in short, 'Tribunal') in ATA No. 771(18) 2016 was challenged by the EPF. 3. The Tribunal has directed refund of a sum of Rs. 25,93,021/- to 2 LPA No. 32 of 2019 DAV Nandraj Public School within 15 days failing which the aforesaid amount shall carry interest @ 12% per annum till the date of payment/realisation. 4. The writ Court did not agree to the stand taken by the EPF that the assessment to the tune of Rs. 12,057/- by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Ranchi was over and above the original assessment made on 5th April 2006 for Rs. 25,93,021/- towards provident fund and alive dues and interest payable under section 7Q of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. 5. The writ Court after referring to the rival contentions and the order passed by the Tribunal has come to a conclusion that the EPF is not entitled to retain the excess amount paid by the DAV School and any retention by the EPF shall amount to unjust enrichment. 6. The contention raised on behalf of the EPF pertaining to jurisdiction of the Tribunal has been rejected by the writ Court for the following reasons: “9. The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction conferred under the Act, 1952 while passing the impugned order since it had initiated the proceeding akin to the Court having original jurisdiction. The stand of the respondents is that after the order dated 29.07.2011, the establishment represented the petitioner-organization to refund the excess amount, however the same was not responded and thus an application was filed before the Tribunal for the appropriate direction. As per Section 7-I of the Act, 1952, any person aggrieved by a notification issued by the Central Government, or an order passed by the Central Government, or any authority, under the proviso to sub-section 3, or sub-section 4 of section 1, or section 3, or sub-section (1) of section 7A, or section 7B [except an order rejecting an application for review referred to in sub-section 5 thereof], or section 7C, or section 14B, may prefer an appeal to a Tribunal against such notification or order. 10. In the present case, though the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Ranchi in the order dated 29.07.2011 assessed the dues of the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 12,057/-, no direction for refund was passed. Thus, the remedy available before the respondent-establishment was either to prefer review petition under section 7B of the Act, 1952 or an appeal before the Tribunal. On the application of the petitioner, the learned Tribunal, while observing that no fresh order under Section 7C of the Act, 1952 was passed, ordered for release of the excess amount of Rs. 25,93,021/- to the respondents.” 3 LPA No. 32 of 2019 7. Pursuant to a complaint dated 5th July 2005 received from Class-IV employees of the DAV school a team of Enforcement Officers carried inspection and submitted a report on 16th September 2005. This enquiry report records that the DAV school was maintaining two separate registers, one for permanent staff and another for temporary staff at both the establishments which were at Lalpur and Bariatu. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Ranchi passed an order of assessment on 5th April 2006 under section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and interest payable under section 7Q aggregating Rs. 25,93,021/- and the application filed by the DAV school under section 7B for review of the assessment order was dismissed vide order dated 3rd July 2006. The DAV school thereafter approached the appellate tribunal by filing ATA No. 641(3)2006 which was allowed by an order of remand dated 29th July 2008 on the ground that there was no proper identification of the beneficiaries. Accordingly a fresh proceeding was initiated and the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Ranchi assessed the provident fund dues of the respondent-establishment only for 22 new beneficiaries. On the basis of this order, an application for refund of the excess amount was filed by the respondent-establishment vide ATA No. 771(18)2016. This application was allowed by the appellate tribunal with a direction to the EPF organization to refund the excess amount within 15 days. The writ Court has taken note of the findings recorded by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner that out of 125 employees no record was made available in respect of 54 beneficiaries and the name of 8 employees was mentioned twice. 8. From the records, we find that the DAV School is not disputing its liability towards 63 employees in respect of which provident fund contribution has been deposited by it – this is an admitted position. 9. The DAV School is also not disputing its liability to pay employees' provident fund contribution in respect of 22 employees who were identified in course of the enquiry. 10. While so, we do not find any reason to interfere with the writ Court's order and would dismiss LPA No. 32 of 2019 with an observation 4 LPA No. 32 of 2019 that the amount of Rs. 25,93,021/- can be refunded to the DAV School, only if, after proper verification it is found that this amount does not include provident fund dues and interest, if any, under section 7Q for 63 employees. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated: 16th June 2023 Tanuj/N.A.F.R