Limited scope for interference in a review application and the supervisory nature of a writ of certiorari

JUDGMENT

Ravi Krishan Kapur, J. - The petitioners assail the orders dated 28 May 2013 and 31 July, 2013 respectively passed under Section 7A and Section 7B of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 ("the Act") and the consequential actions taken pursuant thereto.

2. The petitioners are carrying on business of manufacturing kraft paper. The factory of the petitioner establishment is situated at village Sherpur, P.S.-Amta, Howrah.

3. The petitioner establishment was allotted Code no.WB/49849 under the Act. On 9 May, 2012, the respondent authorities initiated a proceeding under Section 7A of the Act against the petitioner establishment. The petitioner establishment was duly informed of the initiation of such proceedings and participated in the same. By an order dated 28 May, 2013 the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner passed a final order determining an amount of Rs.38,87,303/- as principal payable by the petitioner establishment for the period from 1 November, 2011 to 3 March, 2013 and a further sum of Rs.6,05,532/- as interest under Section 7Q for the aforesaid period.

4. Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioner filed an application for review under Section 7B of the Act. By an order dated 31 July 2013, the review application was dismissed on the ground that there were no grounds warranting interference with the order dated 31 July, 2013.

5. Aggrieved by both the orders, the petitioners filed this petition. The single ground urged at the hearing of this petition was that of natural justice. It was said that the petitioner establishment had filed a letter dated 12 March, 2014 requesting the respondent authorities to supply a copy of the report relied on by the respondent authorities and described as "voluminous in nature" in the order dated 28 May, 2013. Since this report had not been supplied, it was submitted on their behalf that there had been a violation of natural justice. By an interim order dated 6 March, 2018, the respondent authorities were restrained from realizing the amount stated in the communication dated 22 August, 2013 from the petitioner establishment.

6. On behalf of the respondent authorities it was urged that this petition was liable to be dismissed and there were no grounds whatsoever warranting any interference with the impugned orders. It was urged that having filed a review application and not taken recourse by way of an appeal under Section 7I of the Act the petitioners were estopped from enlarging the scope of this petition. It was urged that the scope of a review application being more limited than that of an appeal, the Court ought to be circumspect whilst entertaining any other disputes raised by the petitioners at this stage. Moreover, it was urged by the respondent authorities, that the petitioners had deliberately chosen to file a review application to circumvent the precondition of depositing the mandatory 75% as stipulated under section 7-0 of the Act. In any event, it was submitted on behalf of the respondents that there was no merit on the grounds of natural justice urged by the petitioner establishment and the same was belated, afterthought and malafide.

7. It was further also that the petitioner establishment had been duly provided with the computation sheets and calculation of the provident fund dues as assessed under Section 7A of the Act in their order dated 28 May 2013. Accordingly, it was submitted on behalf of the respondent authorities that the petition was liable to be dismissed and the respondent authorities granted liberty to take expeditious steps for recovery of their dues.

8. I have heard the parties and have considered the pleadings filed on their behalf. As noted earlier, the only ground urged before me by the petitioners seeking interference with the impugned orders is that of natural justice. It was submitted on their behalf, that the impugned order under Section 7A of the Act records that the respondent authorities had taken into account