Point of law: validity/sustainability of the orders impugned cannot be enquired into in a writ proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India since the same requires consideration of various disputed questions of fact

ORDER :

1. The present Writ Petition has been filed for the following relief:

“......this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Directions more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the Order No. AP/VP/13/CC-EXAM/7A/2010/1414, dated 30.09.2010, passed by respondent herein as wholly illegal, unconstitutional, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and contrary to the mandatory provisions of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Mis. Provisions Act, 1952, and consequently restrain the respondent herein from levying and demanding Provident Fund at 12% under Section 6, Proviso of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and pass such other or further orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.”

2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent No. 1.

3. I.A. No. 44961 of 2017 was filed by the employees of the petitioner establishment, who were in service by the time of the order, dated 30.09.2010 passed by the respondent No. 1 and later they were retired from service, seeking to implead them as respondent Nos. 2 to 28 and the same was allowed on 20.11.2012 impleading them as respondent Nos. 2 to 28 in this writ petition.

4. I.A. No. 1 of 2018 was filed by the similarly situated persons, who are impleaded as respondent Nos. 2 to 28 and as such, I.A. No. 1 of 2018 is allowed on 08-12-2020, impleading them as respondent Nos. 29 to 55 in this writ petition.

5. Heard Sri. P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri. G. Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Rambhupal Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No. 1, Sri. V. Raghu, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 28 and Dr. P.B. Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 29 to 55.

6. The learned senior counsel, Sri. P. Veera Reddy, would submit that the Petitioner/ Hindustan Shipyard Limited, which is a Government of India undertaking, has its registered Office in Delhi and the factory and yard is located in Visakhapatnam. The Petitioner has been undertaking the activities such as construction of ocean going vessels, off-shore platforms, repairs of ships/ submarines etc. The Petitioner over years has been contributing to great measure in indigenous design, construction and manufacture of ocean going vessels, off shore platforms, oil rigs, drill-ship. The Petitioner was under the administrative control and supervision of the Ministry of Surface Transport and Ministry of Shipping.

7. The learned senior counsel submits that it has been policy decision of the Government of India to give guidelines in the pricing policy the ocean going vessels and these guidelines with a view to encourage indigenous growth of ship building activity in the country, encouraged competitive price and the difference in pricing viz. between the actual cost in the construction of a ship and the sale price of a ship is made good through subsidies over a period of time. As a result of incurring more expenses than the receipts, the Organization has accumulated losses from 1979 onwards. As on 31.03.1998, the accumulated losses of the Organization are Rs. 962.99 crores. The accumulated losses have eroded the paid up capital and all reserves of the petitioner.

8. The learned senior counsel submits that it is appropriate to submit that the Petitioner has a key role to play in ship building and repair activity from National Maritime Sector. The Government of India having realized the importance and time of restructuring the Petitioner's Organization in all aspects including introduction of voluntary retirement scheme, mechanization, writing off Government of India loans/ outstanding, interest accrued thereon, guarantee fee and also simultaneously requested government of Andhra Pradesh to consider writing off sales tax arrears and in view of liberalization, the Petitioner's Organization was also permitted to undertake and execute profit making ventures.

9. The learned senior counsel further