The cancellation of exemption without a hearing violates principles of natural justice, entitling affected parties to an opportunity to present their case.

JUDGMENT :

SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.

1. The writ application has been preferred challenging an order dated June 30, 2014 vide No.385 – LW /PF – 48/2009 issued by the respondent no.2 /The Secretary, Labour Department, and Memo No. R – EX /WB /1266 /385 (INDEX) /CC – VI /RO/KOL /781(i) dated July 30, 2014 issued to the Senior Vice President and the Chairman, BOT, the Statesman Ltd. by the respondent No.5/the R.P.F. Authority and give the petitioner sufficient opportunity to be heard on production of all documents. The petitioner has further challenged, Memo No. A /SPL /Security /WB/1266 /RO /1259 (i), dated August 05, 2014, issued to the petitioner by the respondent No.5/RPF Authority. The final relief prayed for by the petitioner is to stop the cancellation of the exemption for the employees of the petitioner company under the provision of Section 27A of the Employee’s Provident Fund Scheme.

2. The petitioner’s case is that the establishment of the Petitioner company continued to be governed by the condition of exemption as notified in terms of Section 17 (1)(a) of the said Act, and at all material times, was applicable to the establishment of the Petitioner.

3. Since the said establishment in respect of the said company was declared to be an "exempted establishment" in terms of the provisions contained in Section 17 of the said Act of 1952, a Board of Trustees was duly established for the administration of the affairs relating to collection, deposit, investment and all other matters relating to provident fund contributions of the employees of the said company.

4. On or about May 15, 2014, alleging violation of several provisions of Para 27AA of the said Scheme of 1952, the respondents wrongfully and illegally held out a threat to recommend for cancellation of exemption to the appropriate government for the alleged irregularities of the provisions of Para 27AA of the said Scheme of 1952.

5. The Petitioner submits that being an establishment exempted from the coverage of EPF Scheme, 1952 and being governable only by the terms and conditions as delineated in the conditions for grant of exemption in the Notification, the provisions of Appendix A to Para 27AA of the EPF Scheme, 1952 ipso-facto does not apply to the establishment of the Petitioner Company. Furthermore, the provident fund authorities have neither power nor jurisdiction to recommend cancellation of exemption.

6. On or about June 30, 2014, the State Government vide an order being no. 385 - LW/PF-48/2009 cancelled the exemption granted to the Petitioner company on the ground that there was violation of Para 27AA and the Appendix A of the said Scheme of 1952.

7. The Petitioner states that the concerned respondent authorities have cancelled the said exemption in total violation of principles of natural justice without giving the Petitioner any opportunity of hearing and the orders are otherwise bad in law and are liable to be set aside and/or quashed. As such the impugned show cause notice and order dated June 30, 2014 and subsequent proceedings initiated are vitiated by error of law apparent on the face of record and are not sustainable in law as the impugned show cause notice and order dated June 30, 2014 are also not reasoned orders.

8. The petitioner has filed written notes and relied upon the following judgments:-

i. Caledonian Jute & Industries Ltd. & Anr. vs Union of India & Ors., in W.P. 6138(W) of 2009, decided on 14.11.2011, (Single Bench).

ii. Caledonian Jute & Industries Ltd. & Anr. vs Union of India & Ors., in W.P. 6138(W) of 2009, 2018 SCC OnLine Cal 3462, dec