2019 Supreme(Bom) 699

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR
MANISH PITALE, J.
Sanmitra Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Akola - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 5154 of 2016, 142 of 2014, 333, 1027 of 2011, 1106 of 2009, 1125 of 2014, 3507 of 2013, 3654 of 2010, 3882 of 2014, 4926 of 2003, 5032 of 2003, 5226 of 2009, 5566 of 2010, 5576 of 2015, 5667 of 2009, 6149 of 2011, 6191 of 2005
Decided On : 25-04-2019

Headnote:

Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 – Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Sections 7, 18 – Agents Under Provisions – Group of writ petitions, filed by the banks (employer) as also by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner challenge orders passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal as also the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, pertaining to the question as to whether pigmy agents/collection agents appointed by the banks for collection of small deposit amounts could be covered under the provisions of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and whether the Provident Fund Commissioner could enquire into the applicability of the Act of 1952 on such banks and if so, the liability of the banks under the provisions of the Act of 1952. – Whether the demands of the Commission Agents or as the case may be Deposit Collectors Employed in the Banks listed in the Annexure that they are entitled to pay scales, allowances and other service conditions available to regular clerical employees of those banks is justified – If not, to what relief are the workmen concerned entitled and from which date – Held, There is also reference made to judgments of this Court and the Honble Supreme Court regarding the question as to what can be said to be ratio decidendi of a judgment, but the said judgments do not need any discussion or consideration because this Court has found that the judgments of the Division Bench of this Court in writ petition and review in the case of Pachora Peoples Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. Employees Provident Fund Organization (supra) as well as the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Nashik Merchant Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner II (supra) lay down a ratio that is binding on this Court and that there is no question of the said judgments not being binding, because they were allegedly rendered on concessions made on behalf of the banks therein. – Accordingly, the said contention raised on behalf of the banks is rejected. – It is important to refer to the fact that even while approving the parameters laid down by the review judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, the Honble Supreme Court in its judgment in the case of Nashik Merchant Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner II (supra) specifically directed that the Provident Fund Authorities under the Act of 1952 would be at liberty to take decision afresh in the matters after hearing the contesting parties, who also would be at liberty to raise all contentions as may be available in law. – Therefore, it becomes clear that if the dispute in the present cases is also remanded to the Provident Fund Authorities under the Act of 1952, to be taken up for consideration on the parameters laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in its judgment in review in the case of Pachora Peoples Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. Employees Provident Fund Organization (supra), all questions would be open and they would be decided on material that would be placed on record by rival parties, which could be enquired into by the Authorities as per the mandate of the Act of 1952. – Such an enquiry can certainly not be permitted to be thwarted at the threshold on the basis of the said argument regarding binding nature of the award of the Industrial Tribunal under section 18(3)(d) of the Act of 1947. – Court is of the opinion that the writ petitions in the present case deserve to be partly allowed and all the cases deserve to be remanded to the Provident Fund Commissioner for undertaking enquiry under section 7-A of the Act of 1952, on the parameters laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pachora Peoples Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. Employees Provident Fund Organization (supra) quoted above, including on the question of the applicability of the Act of 1952 to the banks/employers in the present case as mandated under section 7-A(1)(a) of the Act of 1952. – Writ Petitions Disposed of