Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Debangsu Basak, J.
M/s. Satark Security Services – Appellant
Versus
Employees Provident Fund Organizations – Respondent
W.P. No. 076 of 2018
Decided On : 04-04-2018
For the Appellant :Mr. Pannir Chelvam, Advocate
The court emphasized the need for securing the amount assessed in the impugned order before considering any interim relief.
Headnote:
Employees' Provident Funds - Challenge to order under section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952 - The petitioner sought leave to file a supplementary affidavit, contending that the authorities had taken coercive measures and issued a prohibitory order on his bank account, preventing him from paying salaries to his employees. The court rejected the interim reliefs as the petitioner failed to secure the amount assessed in the impugned order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged an order under section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952, expressing apprehension of coercive measures and seeking a stay on the prohibitory order issued on his bank account.
Finding of the Court:
The court rejected the interim reliefs as the petitioner failed to secure the amount assessed in the impugned order, and directed the filing of affidavit-in-opposition and reply within specified timelines.
Issues: Challenge to order under section 7A of the Act, 1952, coercive measures by authorities, prohibitory order on petitioner's bank account, inability to pay salaries to employees, and request for stay on impugned order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that without the amount assessed in the impugned order being secured by the petitioner, it would not be prudent to pass any interim order, and directed the filing of affidavits within specified timelines.
Final Decision: The court rejected the interim reliefs and directed the filing of affidavit-in-opposition and reply within specified timelines, keeping the point of maintainability open due to the non-representation of the respondents.
Debangsu Basak, J.
An order under section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952 is under challenge in the present writ petition.
2. The petitioner appears in person. He seeks leave to file supplementary affidavit. He submits that, when the writ petition was taken up for consideration yesterday, that is, April 3, 2018 he expressed an apprehension that the authorities would take coercive mesures. Such apprehension has come true. He wants to place the subsequent developments on record through the supplementary affidavit.
3. In such circumstances, leave as prayed for is granted. The supplementary affidavit filed be taken on record.
4. The petitioner draws the attention of the Court to the fact that, there is no appellate authority envisaged under section 7 I of the Act of 1952. He relies upon the notification dated June 23, 2017, and the list of Central Government Industrial Tribunals (CGITs), and their jurisdiction. He submits that, Andaman & Nicobar Islands is left out from the list of CGITs and their jurisdiction. He contends that, by virtue of section 158 of the Finance Act 2017, sub section (1A) has been inserted under section 7A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In terms of such provisions, the Employees Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal stands merged with the CGITs.
5. Drawing attention of the Court to the supplementary affidavit and a communication issued by his banker, the petitioner submits that, the Provident Fund authority has issued a prohibitory order with regard to the bank account maintained by the petitioner. He submits that, he has a number of employees and that, he is required to pay a sum of about Rs. 50.00 lakhs per month to such employees. By reason of the prohibitory order, he will be unable to pay the salaries of the employees. He seeks a stay on the prohibitory order issued to him.
6. Referring to the impugned order, he submits that, the impugned order suffers from perversity. He contends that, on inspection, the inspector found 335 employees engaged by the petitioner. However, the impugned order returns finding of employment of more than 600 employees. He submits that, there is apparent inconsistency in the impugned order with regard to the number of employees engaged by the petitioner. Therefore, he submits that, there should be a stay of impugned order with a further stay of the prohibitory order issued subsequent to the filing of writ petition.
7. Affidavit of service filed in Court discloses that, the respondents have been served. None appears for the respondents.
8. As noted above the order impugned is under section 7A of the Act, 1952. The impugned order records that, an enquiry under section 7A of the Act, 1952 was initiated by a summons dated May 26, 2017. At the first hearing of the proceedings, none appeared for the petitioner. Enquiry was conducted on different dates from June 28, 2017 to November 20, 2017. During the course of enquiry, no record was submitted by the petitioner. However, a copy of the balance sheet of the establishment was made available. The petitioner relies upon the inspection report dated May 16, 2017 to allege perversity in the impugned order. This contention, prima facie, is fallacious. Further enquiry was conducted on different dates ranging from June 28, 2017 to November 14, 2017 which was subsequent to the report dated May 16, 2017 relied upon by the petitioner. The impugned order is based on materials coming out from the enquiry held subsequent to the inspection report dated May 16, 2017. Such materials were taken into consideration for the purpose of ascertaining the liability of the petitioner. Prima facie, therefore, there is no perversity in the impugned order. The petitioner has not made out a prima facie case requiring an immediate unconditional intervention. On a query from the Court as to whether the petitioner is willing to secure the entire amount found due in impugned order, the petitioner submits that, he is not
