Back
2017 Supreme(Cal) 3
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Rakesh Tiwari And Mir Dara Sheko, JJ.
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner – Appellant
Vs.
M/s. Sylee Tea Estate & ors. – Respondents
M.A.T. 934 of 2013 With C.A.N. 3309 of 2014 With C.A.N. 6787 of 2013 With C.A.N. 6148 of 2015
Decided on : 03-01-2017
Important Points
Subject
Administrative Law - Tribunals
Act Referred
Headnote
EMPLOYEES’ PROVIDENT FUNDS AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT, 1952 - SECTIONS 7-I, 7-L - APPEAL - EMPLOYEES’ PROVIDENT FUNDS APPELLATE TRIBUNAL - JURISDICTION - INTEREST - EMPLOYEES’ PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER - ASSESSMENT - REHABILITATION PACKAGE - MODIFICATION OF ORDER - INSTALLMENTS - EMPLOYEES’ PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION - WRIT PETITION - DISMISSAL - SUMMARY
Fact of the Case:
The Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) filed a writ petition challenging an order of the Employees’ Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) that allowed the appellant, a rehabilitated tea estate, to pay its provident fund dues in 36 equal installments. The EPFO contended that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to grant such relief and that it could not modify the interest component of the dues assessed under Section 7Q of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (the Act).
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to modify the order passed under Section 7A of the Act, particularly in the interest of the workers of the establishment. The court further held that the Tribunal could also direct the mode in which the relief was granted, including the payment of dues in installments.
Issues: 1. Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to modify the order passed under Section 7A of the Act? 2. Whether the Tribunal could direct the mode in which the relief was granted, including the payment of dues in installments?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that Section 7-I of the Act empowers the Tribunal to modify or vary the order passed under Section 7A of the Act, particularly for the interest of the workers of an establishment. 2. The court also held that Section 7-L of the Act provides that the Tribunal may, after giving the parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit, confirming, modifying or annulling the order appealed against or may refer the case back to the Tribunal.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal on merit and all the connected applications were also disposed of accordingly.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. S. C. Prosad
Pursuant to the order dated 9.3.2016 the learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the defects have been removed.
1. We perused the office report dated 12.7.2016 which shows that defects have been removed. The appeal is therefore in order.
2. The application for condonation of delay being C.A.N.3309 of 2014 is taken up for hearing.
3. At the time of call Counsel for the appellant is present, however, nobody appears on behalf of the respondents, therefore, the matter is taken up at the instance of the Counsel for the appellant.
4. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
5. Office has reported that the appellant has preferred this appeal beyond time by 217 days. Though the reasons given in paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 of the delay condonation application being C.A.N. 3309 of 2014 are vague but in the interest of justice we have also looked into the merits of the case as has been settled by the Apex Court in the catena of decisions that while considering the delay condonation application merits of the case may also be considered, hence the merit is also looked into.
6. Since none appears to oppose the delay condonation application and we find the cause shown for delay to be sufficient, it is condoned.
7. Before deciding the case on merits, the factual aspects may be considered.
8. Background of the appeal is that the Government had granted rehabilitation package to M/s. Naya Sylee Tea Estate, Nagrakata, Jalpaiguri which was taken over under the directions by the Government for rehabilitation. It appears from record that terms and conditions of taking over the appellant for rehabilitation are not on record, hence, it is assumed that in order to grant rehabilitation to it the liability of the industry may also have been taken over by the Government.
9. The establishment defaulted in payment of Employees’ Provident Fund dues of the employees. The Commissioner of Employees’ Provident Fund for initiated proceedings for recovery of the amount under Section 7A of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, against the management of the company. An amount of Rs.43,26,403/- was assessed in the proceeding under Section 7A and interest amount of Rs.3,03,043 towards Section 7Q of the Act. The assessment order was challenged before the Appellate Tribunal in ATA No.872(15) 2011 (M/s. Naya Sylee Tea Estate Vs. RPFC, Jalpaiguri). which vide its order dated 3.1.2012 considered the genuine financial difficulty of the appellant, in remitting the huge amount wards Provident Fund dues with interest in one go and directed to pay the said amount in 36 equal instalments.
10. Being aggrieved, the petitioner, Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation moved writ petition being W.P.13300(W) of 2012 challenging the order of the Tribunal directing recovery of the amount assessed under Sections 7A and 7Q of the Act be paid by the establishment in 36 equal instalments. The petitioner also challenged the very jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal and exercising its power under Section 7-I and 7-L of the Act saying that it had no authority in law to grant relief of instalment in payment of the balance amount as assessed by the Employees’ Provident Fund Commissioner under Section 7-A read with Section 7-Q of the Act.
11. Further contention of the learned Advocate for the appellant is that even if the Tribunal has power to pass an order under Section 7-I of the Act with regard to the amount assessed under Section 7A of the Act, it has no power or authority to pass any order on the interest part accrued on the principal under Section 7Q of the Act.
12. The order passed in the writ petition is not a very long one but it gives out in detail the argument of the petitioner and the notification etc. on which the relief has been placed for challenging the order of the Tribunal dated 3.1.2012. For ready reference the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 3.9.2012
