Back
2015 Supreme(Del) 391
High Court of Delhi
VED PRAKASH VAISH, J.
Food Corporation of India, Dirba, Sangrur (PB) – Appellant
Versus
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bathinda (PB) – Respondent
W.P.(C) No. 5678 of 2013
Decided On : 11-03-2015
Advocate appeared:
For the Petitioner:Rajeev Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Balraj Dewan, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limitations of the power of rectification of mistake under Section 7-L(2) of the EPF Act and the distinction between procedural review and review on merits.
Headnote:
EPF - EPF Code Number - Section 14B, Section 7Q, Section 7L - The court discussed the provisions of Section 7-L of the EPF Act, which confers powers to the Tribunal to decide the appeals, and the limitations of the power of rectification of mistake under Section 7-L(2). The court emphasized that the power of rectification of mistake can be exercised within a period of five years from the date of passing of the order. The court also distinguished between procedural review and review on merits, highlighting that the power of procedural review may be invoked in cases where the proceeding itself was vitiated by an error of procedure or mistake. The court set aside the impugned order dated 21.12.2012 passed by the EPF Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner applied for the EPF Code number and had been paying its provident fund dues regularly. The respondent levied damages and interest on the petitioner, which was set aside by the EPF Appellate Tribunal. The respondent filed an application for review, which was allowed by the EPF Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner challenged the impugned order dated 21.12.2012.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the EPF Appellate Tribunal passed the impugned order as if it was deciding an appeal, which was already decided by the Tribunal. The court emphasized the limitations of the power of rectification of mistake under Section 7-L(2) of the EPF Act and set aside the impugned order dated 21.12.2012.
Issues: The issues revolved around the power of the EPF Appellate Tribunal to review the earlier order, the distinction between procedural review and review on merits, and the limitations of the power of rectification of mistake under Section 7-L(2) of the EPF Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the power of rectification of mistake can be exercised within a period of five years from the date of passing of the order and that the EPF Appellate Tribunal was not competent to decide the case on merits under Section 7-L(2) of the EPF Act.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned order dated 21.12.2012 passed by the EPF Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi.
1. By way of present petition, the petitioner assails the order dated 21.12.2012 passed by learned Employees’ Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short, “EPF Appellate Tribunal”) in ATA No.522(11)2008.
2. Shorn off unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that the petitioner applied for the EPF Code number and the respondent allotted the PF Code No.13650 to it. The petitioner had since been paying its provident fund dues regularly and punctually in respect of its employees. The enforcement officer vide its inspection report dated 09.12.1996 confirmed the inspection of the EPF records for the period from 08/95 to 10/96 and further observed in the said report that the EPF dues were correctly deposited by the petitioner except for a sum of Rs.30/- under account No. II and Rs.12/- under account No.22. Further, vide inspection report dated 10.07.1997, the Enforcement Officer confirmed that on inspection of the PF accounts/ records for the period from 03/89 to 02/91, 02/93 to 08/93 and 11/96 to 05/97, it was found that the EPF dues stood duly paid by the petitioner.
3. Thereafter, vide letter dated 26/30.03.1999 the petitioner intimated the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Chandigarh that on inspection of records for the period from 11/96 to 12/98 in respect of FSD, Dirba it was found that there was an arrear of Rs.134/- for the period from 11/96 to 05/97 and an arrear of Rs.3781/- for the period from 06/97 to 12/98 and the same were deposited vide Challan dated 25.03.1999. Through the aforementioned letter, the petitioner also requested the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Chandigarh to confirm and intimate it if there were still any dues/ penalty pending against the HTC within 30 days of receipt of the said letter. Similarly, vide letter dated 01.05.2003, the petitioner intimated the respondent that an arrear of Rs.14/- which were found for the period from 12/2001 to 02/2003 was also deposited by it vide Challan dated 30.04.2003. In this letter also, the petitioner requested the respondent to confirm and intimate it if there was any due/ penalty pending against HTC within 30 days of the receipt of said letter.
4. The Enforcement Officer vide inspection report for the year 2003 confirmed that the EPF dues for the period from 12/2001 to 07/2002, 09/2002 to 10/2002 and 12/2002 to 02/2003 had been correctly deposited by the petitioner and only administrative and other charges were required to be paid by it. Subsequently, also vide letters dated 15.06.2005 and 31.05.2007, the respondent intimated the petitioner that the EPF deposits for the period from 01.03.2003 to 29.04.2005 had been duly verified and the deposits for a period from 30.04.2005 to 29.04.2007 were duly confirmed by the respondent respectively.
5. The respondent vide letter No.1(20)/Legal Cell/BTI/4488 dated 11.07.2002 confirmed that the applicability of the EPF Act to FCI, Punjab has been struck down by the EPF Appellate Tribunal and the petitioner’s organization stands “excluded” from the provisions of the EPF Act.
6. The respondent issued a notice No.SRO/BTI/DMG/PN/13650/ 4633 dated 31.08.2007 to the petitioner under Section 14B of the EPF Act detailing the amount due under Section 14B and 7Q of the EPF Act as against the petitioner for the period from 11/1987 to 02/2006 along-with an opportunity to the petitioner to represent its case in person by appearing before the respondent on 06.09.2007. The said show-cause notice was duly replied to by the petitioner vide its reply dated 24.10.2007. Finally, vide impugned order No.SRO/BTI/DMG/ PN/13650/2668 dated 20.06.2008 the respondent levied damages and interest on the petitioner and further directed the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.1,86,524/- (Rupees One lakh eighty six thousand five hundred and twenty four) along with an interest of Rs.14,645/- (Rupees Fourteen thousand six hundred and forty five) within fifteen days of receipt of the said order by the petitioner, failing
