The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees v. Provident Fund Organization, District Ranchi
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 1121 of 2012 Laxmi Devi Shroff Adarsh Sanskrit College (an institution belongs to and run by Central Government) Harisharana Kutir, Kalirakha, B. Deoghar through its Acting Principal Sri Arbind Sharma, son of Sri Kameshwar Sharma having its office at Harisharanam Kutir, Kalirakha, B. Deoghar, P.O. and P.S.- B. Deoghar, District- Deoghar Petitioner … … 1. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Versus Provident Fund Organization, District Ranchi. 2. The Joint Commissioner of Provident Fund, District Ranchi. 3. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, District Ranchi 4. The District Inspector, E.P.F. Office, District Deoghar 5. Recovery Officer, Regional Office, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Ranchi 6. The Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal 4th Floor, Core 2, SCOPE Minor, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi- 110092 … … Respondents --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner For the Respondents
Legal Reasoning
--- : Mr. Himanshu Kr. Mehta, Advocate Ms. Manjusri Patra, Advocate : Mr. Kislaya Prasad, Advocate --- 09/25.01.2023 Learned counsel for the parties are present. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: “For grant of an writ(s), order(s) and/or direction (s) of appropriate nature quashing the order dated 20.07.09 as contained in Annexure- 21 passed by Respondent No. 3 Under Section 7B of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 whereby and whereunder the Petitioner institution directed to comply the order dated 16.08.2007 passed under Section 7A of the Act (Annexure-6) by the said authority AND also prays for quashing the order dated 16.08.2007 passed under Section 7A of the Act as contained in Annexure- 6 AND also prays for quashing the order dated 17.08.2011 passed in ATA No. 344 (18) 2010 (Annexure-25) by Respondent No. 6, i.e. Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, affirming the order dated 20.07.2009 (Annexure -21) under Section 7B and order dated 16.08.2007 (Annexure- 6) under Section 7A of the Act AND further prays for quashing the demand notice dated 12.08.2009 issued by Respondent No. 3 by which Rs. 10,68,992.00 has been demanded. AND the notice dated 21.12.2011 (Annexure-27) issued by Respondent No. 1 may be quashed AND further prays for Respondent to refund the 2 arbitrarily seized amount of Rs. 6,33,274.00 from the A/c No. 2381 of Allahabad Bank, Deoghar Branch AND finally prays for decoding the petitioner institution from Code No. JH 11276 since the Act does not apply to the petitioner institute in view of Section 1 and Section 16 of the E.P.F. and in M.P. Act, 1952.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the appeal 3. under the provisions of Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1952) was filed before the learned tribunal pursuant to order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 4125 of 2009 decided on 23.04.2010 read with order dated 21.05.2010 passed in I.A. No. 2104 of 2010 with I.A. No. 2108 of 2010 in W.P.(C) No. 4125 of 2009 as contained in Annexure- 23 and 24 of the writ petition. The learned counsel submits that unfortunately on the day when the case was taken up i.e. on 17.08.2011, nobody had appeared on behalf of the appellant, but the learned tribunal has decided the case on merits. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed the memo of appeal filed before the learned tribunal and has submitted that the order dated 16.08.2007 which was the order passed under Section 7A of the Act of 1952 as well as the order dated 20.07.2009 which was the order passed under Section 7B of the aforesaid Act of 1952 was challenged. Further, a direction was prayed to cancel the EPF scheme made applicable to the petitioner institution by withdrawing the code. The prayer made before the learned appellate tribunal is quoted as under: - quash “In view of the facts mentioned in Para 6 above, the applicant prays that this Hon’ble Tribunal may be graciously pleased to allow the present application with costs by passing following orders/directions:- (i) To call for the records based on which the impugned orders have been passed by the Respondents. (ii) To No. JH/RO/RNC/CC/11276/07/1324 dated 16.08.2007 by which the request for withdrawal of the Appellant institution was not accepted and a demand notice of Rs. 9,54,143/- along with interest of Rs. 1,14,849/- was sent to the Appellant institution. (iii) To No. JH/RO/RNC/CC/11276/09/2412 dated 20.07.2009 by which the Respondent No. 3 passed order under Section
Decision
Order Order quash the the 3 7B of the EPF & MP Act, 1952 rejecting the said review petition without duly considering the issues raised therein whereby the orders dated 03.10.2007 and 22.04.2008 by which the Respondents passed illegal orders of attaching the account of the Appellant institution by illegally recovering an amount of Rs. 6,33,274/- and sent notice for further recovery of Rs. 4,63,617/- was again restored. (iv) To direct the Respondents to cancel the EPF scheme made applicable to the Appellant institution by withdrawing the code number allotted earlier with further direction to refund the entire amount illegally kept by the Respondents along with penal interest of 18% P.A. (v) To pass such order/orders and directions as deemed appropriate by this Hon’ble Tribunal.” The learned counsel submits that the appellate authority while 5. deciding the case on merits has not considered the main point raised in the grounds of appeal that the application for grant of EPF code under Section 1(4) of the Act of 1952 was itself not in accordance with law and not binding on the petitioner (employer). He submits that the principal had no authority to represent the petitioner and file any application for grant of EPF code under Section 1(4) of the Act of 1952. He submits that the principal had acted as the employer as well as an employee. He also submits that as per the application itself there were only 12 employees i.e. much below the required persons for mandatory coverage under the EPF Scheme. The learned counsel submits that the application was not a joint application of the employer and the employee and accordingly EPF code was fit to be cancelled and therefore, a prayer was made to annul the coverage. The learned counsel submits that if the coverage is annulled, the order passed under Section 7A/ 7B will not stand. The learned counsel submits that though the matter has been decided ex-parte on merits, but many aspects of the matter which go to the root in the matter regarding coverage of the petitioner under the aforesaid 1952 Act and raised in the memo of appeal, have not been considered. Learned counsel submits that an opportunity be given to the petitioner to argue the matter afresh before the learned tribunal on merits. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, while opposing the prayer of the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner 4 did not appear before the appellate tribunal at his own peril and therefore, he cannot complain that all the aspects of the matter have not been considered. The learned counsel has also submitted that the petitioner does not have a case on merits and the coverage has been rightly granted to the petitioner and the orders have been rightly passed. However, the learned counsel for the respondents do not dispute that many aspects of the matter and issues raised before the learned appellate tribunal as per the memo of appeal, have not been decided by the learned appellate tribunal. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that it is not in dispute that the petitioner had approached the appellate tribunal by virtue of the orders passed by this Court as referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner in his arguments. The appeal was numbered as ATA No. 344 (18) of 2010. Although there is no cogent explanation as such from the side of the petitioner explaining the reasons for non-appearance before the learned appellate tribunal on 17.08.2011, but the fact remains that the learned appellate tribunal has decided the case on merits. Upon perusal of the memorandum of appeal and the impugned order, it appears that many aspects of the matter, as raised by the appellant in the memorandum of appeal and connected prayers before the appellate tribunal including the plea/prayer as referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner, have not been considered. The points raised by the petitioner are important issued which were required to be considered and decided by the learned appellate tribunal but in absence of any assistance from the side of the petitioner on the day the case was taken up, important issues/points were not placed and consequently not decided by the learned appellate tribunal. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that for the ends of justice one opportunity be given to the petitioner so that the matter be decided afresh by the learned appellate tribunal on merits with regard to all the impugned actions and orders which were challenged by the petitioner before the appellate tribunal with the assistance of the petitioner/their counsel. 5 9. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 17.08.2011 is hereby set-aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned appellate tribunal for passing fresh order in accordance with law after granting an opportunity to the parties to present their respective case. The petitioner is directed to appear before the learned appellate tribunal along with a copy of this order, the writ record as well as a copy of the memo of appeal with annexures, on 27.02.2023. Upon appearance of the parties the learned appellate tribunal shall pass fresh speaking order as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of two months from the date of their appearance. 10. At this, learned counsel for the petitioner herein has submitted that the petitioner shall assist the learned appellate tribunal by filing short synopsis/notes of arguments so that the valuable time of the learned appellate tribunal is not wasted. 11. It is made clear that this Court has not entered into the merits or otherwise of the claim of the either party. 12. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of. 13. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed. Pankaj (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)