Bokaro Mahila College v. The Central Provident Fund Commissioner, Central Board, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, Bhikhaji Kama

--- : Mr. Bhanu Pratap, Advocate : Mrs. Bharti Kumari, Advocate : Mr. Rupesh Singh, Advocate : Mr. Jagdeesh, Advocate --- Heard the learned counsels for the parties. 16/26.09.2024 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following relief: “That in the instant writ application the Petitioner prays for issuance of an appropriate writ/ order/ direction particularly a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of order dated 01.07.2015 under sections 7A read with Sections 14B and 7Q of Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Act – 1952 (hereinafter as “Act”) and also for quashing of Order dated 14.08.2015 passed under Sections 7B of the Act passed by Sri Prabhat Sinha, the Respondent No.-3, who has no jurisdiction to pass above said Orders on the date of Order as per D.O.P.T. provision Sri Prabhat Sinha, reverted back automatically from 03.11.2011 to his parent Cadre i.e. Enforcement Officer/Account Officer after one tenure of Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and Petitioner further prays for appropriate writ, directing application of the Petitioner under Section-14B of Act, read with 32B of the E.P.F.S. 1952 for waiver of damage of Rs. 64,48,206/- charged against the Petitioner as per Order dated 01.07.2015 of Respondent No.-3. AND/OR For any other relief or relies to which the Petitioner may be found entitled too.” the Respondent to dispose

3. I.A. No.10199 of 2024 has been filed for the following relief: 1 “That the instant Interlocutory Application is being filed on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of the impugned order of attachment as contained in Order No. JH / DO / BOKARO / Penal Damages / 8F / JHRAN0005488000 / 2024 / 579, dated 12.08.2024 (Annexure-14 of this Ι.Α.), issued by Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Bokaro, by which Bank Account of Bokaro Mahila College, Bokaro, maintained in IDBI Bank, City Centre, Sector-4 Branch, Bokaro-827004, has been attached (freezed) for realizing a sum of Rs. 1,34,01,259/- (Rupees One Crore Thirty Four Lacs One Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Nine only), allegedly dues towards payment of Provident Fund, because the same is wholly illegal and arbitrary. And For impleading the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, DO, Bokaro, having its office at Ram Mandir, Bokaro Steel City, P.O. and P.S. Bokaro Steel City, District Bokaro, Pin 827001, Jharkhand, as Respondent No.4.”

4. I.A. No.10518 of 2024 has been filed for the following relief: Letter contained 501/Damages/467, “That the instant Interlocutory Application is being filed on behalf of the Petitioner College for quashing of the impugned summons to No. hearing appear JH/RAN/0005488/000/Enf 21.06.2023 (Annexure-16), issued by Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, RO, Ranchi, by which a total amount of Rs. 1,35,92,902/- including damages (Rs.88,45,254/-) and interest (Rs.47,47,648/) have been shown as Outstanding Dues for the period w.e.f. 19.11.2008 to 12.06.2023, U/s 14B & 7Q of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, because the same is wholly illegal and erroneous.”

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that initially the writ petition was filed on 20.12.2015 alleging that the impugned action and the order passed by respondent no.3 was wholly without jurisdiction. He further submits that the order passed under section 7A read with section 14B and 7Q of Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1952”) was challenged and the writ petition remained pending before this Court. 6. It is submitted that during the pendency of this writ petition, some orders have been passed, which are essentially sequel to the impugned order and arise out of assessment made under section 7A. Those orders are for the period which are substantially overlapping with the period involved in section 7A adjudication and impugned in the main writ petition. 2

7. The learned counsel further submits that the bank account of the petitioner has been attached for realization of sum of Rs.1,34,01,259/- and the petitioner is a college having around more than 3500 students and is getting funds from the concerned university. He submits that on account of this festive season, the salary of the teaching and non- teaching staffs is to be paid and as the bank account has been attached, the petitioner is not in a position to make payment. 8. The learned counsel has also submitted that as per the records of the petitioner, the petitioner has made huge payment against the provident fund dues amounting to the tune of Rs.1,16,94,683/-. He submits that if the date of remittance by the petitioner is taken into consideration and is adjusted at the concerned date on which the payment has been made, the liability on account of damages by way of interest and liability on account of non-payment of the amount arising out of proceeding under Section 7A would itself substantially reduce. The learned counsel submits that the payment made by the petitioner has not been properly accounted for by the respondents. 9. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner is ready to approach the concerned Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, for reconciliation of the statement of payment. 10. The learned counsel submits that he does not want to press the point regarding jurisdiction of respondent no.3 with respect to the impugned order dated 01.07.2015 in view of the counter affidavit, but right may be reserved with the petitioner to avail its remedies in accordance with law and as may be permissible under law. 11. The learned counsel has also submitted that summons have been issued to the petitioner for quantification of damages under section 14B which are under challenge in I.A. No.10518 of 2024. 12. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner would appear before the authority on 17.10.2024 and appropriate time frame may be given so that the accounts are reconciled. 13. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that there can be no problem in reconciling the accounts, but there is stringent provision for condonation of delay if the petitioner 3 challenges the order impugned in the writ petition before the learned tribunal. However, he submits that the petitioner may avail its remedies in accordance with law and as may be permissible under law. He has also submitted that not only the order under section 7A of the Act of 1952, but also the orders passed under other provisions are also amenable to the jurisdiction of the learned tribunal. 14. This Court finds that initially the writ petition was filed challenging the jurisdiction of respondent no.3 to pass orders and action taken against the petitioner, but during the course of hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner has given up the said challenge. 15. Since the petitioner has given up the point of jurisdiction, this Court is not inclined to exercise power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to adjudicate the legality and validity of the impugned order as the petitioner has an efficacious remedy of appeal. The writ petitioner may avail the alternative remedy as may be available and permissible under law. 16. So far as the grievance of the petitioner regarding reconciliation of the amount which has been paid by the petitioner and the attachment of bank account of the petitioner is concerned, needful is required to be done by the respondents and the learned counsel for the respondents has also not raised any serious objection regarding reconciliation of accounts. 17. Accordingly, this Court directs the petitioner to approach the concerned Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner in whose jurisdiction the college of the petitioner falls with all details regarding payment against the provident fund dues on 17.10.2024 and upon its appearance, the respondent no.3 shall do the needful and grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and reconcile the payments made and the demand raised by 29.10.2024 and communicate the decision by first week of November, 2024 through email which may be provided by the petitioner to the concerned authority. 18. Considering the fact that the petitioner is an educational institution having more than 3500 students and the educational institution has to remit salary to teaching and non-teaching staffs 4 during this ensuing festival season, the order of attachment of bank account dated 12.08.2024 [Annexure - 14 to I.A. No.10199 of 2024] shall be kept in abeyance only till 14.11.2024. In case the impugned demand still survives by virtue of aforesaid exercise of reconciliation, it will be open to the respondents to take steps for realisation of its dues in accordance with law. 19. This writ petition and the aforesaid interlocutory applications are disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. 20. Other pending interlocutory applications, if any, are closed. Saurav/- (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 5