Back
2017 Supreme(Pat) 417
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.
Shailendra Kumar and Ors. – Appellants
Vs.
Union of India and Ors. – Respondents
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7268 of 2015
Decided On : 20-06-2017
For the Appellant :Chitranjan Sinha, Senior Advocate and Siddharth Prasad, Advocate
The court established that the Bihar State Pollution Control Board cannot be excluded from the purview of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 due to the lack of formulated rules governing the benefits of Contributory Provident Fund or Old Age Pension.
Headnote:
Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 - Applicability to Bihar State Pollution Control Board - Section 16(1)(c) - Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the applicability of the EPF and MP Act, 1952 to the Bihar State Pollution Control Board under Section 16(1)(c) and the resolution of the Board regarding provident fund accounts and pension benefits. The court found that the Board cannot be excluded from the purview of the EPF and MP Act, 1952 as no scheme or rule has been framed governing the benefits of Contributory Provident Fund or Old Age Pension. The court also highlighted the inclusion of the Board's activities under the schedule of employment of the EPF and MP Act, 1952.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought directions for the Bihar State Pollution Control Board to not come under the purview of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and to provide G.P.F. and pension benefits to its employees at par with the State Government employees. The respondents argued that the Board had adopted the EPF and MP Act, 1952 for its employees and that the writ application filed in representative capacity was not maintainable.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Board cannot be excluded from the purview of the EPF and MP Act, 1952 and dismissed the writ application, stating that it was devoid of any merit.
Issues: Applicability of the EPF and MP Act, 1952 to the Bihar State Pollution Control Board, maintainability of the writ application filed in representative capacity.
Ratio Decidendi: The Board cannot be excluded from the purview of the EPF and MP Act, 1952 as no scheme or rule has been framed governing the benefits of Contributory Provident Fund or Old Age Pension. The court also found that the writ application in representative capacity cannot be entertained without hearing all affected persons.
Final Decision: The writ application was dismissed as being devoid of any merit.
Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.
1. This writ application has been filed by the petitioners for issuance of directions to hold and declare that the Bihar State Pollution Control Board (for short 'the Board') will not come within the purview of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short 'the EPF and MP Act, 1952') and further directions to the respondents especially 'the Board' to make payment of G.P.F. and pension to its retired or likely to retire employees at par with the employees of the State Government.
2. Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have filed the present writ application in representative capacity espousing the cause of all the employees, working as well as retired, of 'the Board', as the officers and employees of 'the Board' have authorized them to file the writ application on their behalf. He would submit that 'the Board' was constituted under Section 4 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (a Central Act) (for short 'the Act') and was provided with the status of a body corporate with power subject to the provisions of 'the Act' to acquire, hold and dispose of property and to contract. He would submit that besides the objectives, which the Board had to achieve under 'the Act', Section 12(3A) of 'the Act' provides the method of recruitment and the terms and conditions of service of officers and employees of 'the Board' by which they would be governed shall be, such as may be determined by 'the Board' regulations provided the same is approved by the State Government.
3. He would submit that 'the Board' having been conceived and constituted for the first time on 07.11.1974 is not having any of such regulation till date. However, on 08.08.1978, in its 2nd meeting, 'the Board', in absence of any such rules/regulations made by 'the Board', by its resolution decided to adopt the methods of recruitment applicable to the State Government officers and employees.
4. He would submit that 'the Board' in its 16th meeting held on 06.08.1983 decided for opening of G.P.F. account for all its officers and employees in the State Bank of India, Main Branch, Patna and the Members Secretary of 'the Board' was authorized to operate the said account. It was decided to transfer the amount deducted for the purpose of G.P.F. by 'the Board' to the bank account in individual names for the purpose of provident fund. It was further resolved in the said meeting that pending framing of rules by 'the Board' in connection with provident fund, the withdrawal of the accounts will be made by the Member Secretary in accordance with rules relating to General Provident Fund.
5. He would contend that in terms of the decision taken in 16th Board meeting dated 06.08.1983, after deducting provident fund amount from salary of each officer and employee of 'the Board', the same were deposited in their respective provident fund accounts maintained at S.B.I., Main Branch, Patna.
6. He would submit that 'the Board' in its 26th meeting held on 25.07.1986 decided that in absence of service rules for its employees, the service rules applicable for the employees of the Bihar State Government will be applicable to the employees of 'the Board' also, but on 29.11.1994, 'the Board', in its 52nd meeting, all of a sudden decided to adopt 'the EPF and MP Act, 1952' for its officers and employees. He would contend that the subsequent decision of 'the Board' to adopt 'the EPF and MP Act, 1952' was a departure from its earlier decisions, especially the Board's decision taken on 25.07.1986, in the 26th meeting and the same was issued by 'the Board' in violation of the principles of natural justice and without serving any notice to its employees and without taking most of them into confidence.
7. He would contend that the officers and employees of 'the Board' are entitled to get pension at par with the employees working in the State Government
