Back
2015 Supreme(Del) 3765
DELHI HIGH COURT
Ved Prakash Vaish, J.
Food Corporation of India, Dirba, Sangrur (PB) - Appellant
Versus
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bathinda (PB) - Resopndent
W.P.(C) 7182/2013
Decided On : 11-03-2015
For the Petitioner:Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. D. Rajeshwar Rao, Advocate.
Headnote:
EPF - EPF Code Number - Section 14-B, Section 7-Q, Section 7-L(2) - The court discussed the provisions of Section 7-L(2) of the EPF Act, which allows the Tribunal to rectify any mistake apparent on record. 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 highlighted that the powers conferred to the Tribunal under Section 7-L(2) of the EPF Act are limited and can be exercised only to make corrections which are apparent on record. The Tribunal cannot, in the garb of this power, reverse or recall its own order even if it is bad in law. The court set aside the impugned order dated 21.12.2012 passed by the Employees’ Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner applied for the EPF Code number and regularly paid its provident fund dues. The enforcement officer confirmed the correct deposit of EPF dues for various periods. The respondent levied damages and interests on the petitioner, which was challenged by the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the EPF Appellate Tribunal passed the impugned order as if it was deciding an appeal, which had already been decided. The court emphasized that the EPF Appellate Tribunal was not invested with the power of review on merits under section 7L(2) of EPF Act. The court set aside the impugned order dated 21.12.2012.
Issues: The main issue was the jurisdiction and scope of Section 7-L(2) of the EPF Act, and whether the EPF Appellate Tribunal had the power to review the order on merits.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the powers conferred to the Tribunal under Section 7-L(2) of the EPF Act are limited and can be exercised only to make corrections which are apparent on record. The Tribunal cannot, in the garb of this power, reverse or recall its own order even if it is bad in law.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned order dated 21.12.2012 passed by learned Employees’ Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New- Delhi.
Ved Prakash Vaish, J.:-
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. 523(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. 12603 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 about inspection of the EPF records for the period from 12/1991 to 11/1996 and it was observed in the said report that the EPF dues were correctly deposited by the petitioner on 30.12.1996. Vide inspection report dated 24.03.1998 of the enforcement officer, it was confirmed that the PF Account records for the period 12/1996 to 02/1998 had been inspected and the due amount was paid except for a sum of Rs. 503/-. Vide inspection report dated 09.01.1999 of the enforcement officer, it was confirmed that PF Accounts were inspected for the period 03/1998 to 12/1998 and as per records, no work had been done during 04/1998, 09/1998, 10/1998 and 11/1998 and only minimum administration charges were to be deposited. It was also confirmed that the calculation of Provident Fund has been correctly done as per provisions of the EPF Scheme. Vide letter No. F.10(17)/EPF/KHN/98/22021 dated 26/30.03.1999, the enforcement officer confirmed that on inspection of the EPF record for the period from 12/1991 to 12/1998 it was found that there were arrears of Rs. 14/- for the period from 12/1991 to 11/1996 which was thereafter deposited vide DD No. 523760 dated 04.02.1997 and deficit of Rs. 503/- for the period from 12/1996 to 02/1998 was deposited vide DD No. 64706 dated 28.04.1998 and deficit of Rs. 28/- for the period from 03/1998 to 12/1998 was deposited vide Challan dated 25.03.1999. The petitioner also requested the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Chandigarh to confirm and intimate whether there were still any dues/ penalty against the HTC for the period 12/1991 to 12/1998, within 30 days of the receipt of the aforementioned letter otherwise, it would be presumed that nothing more was due and FCI would not be responsible towards any liability.
3. The enforcement officer vide inspection report of 1999 confirmed that the PF accounts were inspected for the period from 01/1999 to 06/1999 and it was found that EPF dues were deposited for the said period except Rs. 28/- towards administrative charges to be deposited within 3 days positively. Thereafter, vide inspection report dated 13.06.2000, it was confirmed that PF accounts were inspected for the period 15.06.1999 to 04/2000 and it was found that EPF dues were deposited for the said period except for a sum of Rs. 21/- towards administrative charges. Again, vide inspection report dated 21.03.2002 it was confirmed that the PF accounts were inspected for the period from 02/2001 to 06/2001 and it was found that EPF dues were deposited for the said period except Rs. 21/- towards administrative charges which the petitioner was asked to deposit.
4. The enforcement officer vide inspection report dated 29.04.2003 confirmed that the EPF dues for the period from 04/2002 to 06/2002, 10/2002, 12/2002 and 02/2003 have been correctly deposited by the petitioner.
5. Vide letter No. F.10(17)/EPF/Khanauri/03/6006 dated 01.05.2003, the petitioner informed to the respondent that the enforcement officer had inspected the EPF record for the period from 03/2002 to 02/2003 in respect of FSD Khanauri and a deficit of Rs. 42/- was found which was deposited vide Challan dated 30.04.2003. The respondent was further requested to confirm and intimate if there were still any dues/ penalty pending against HTC for the said period within 30 days, otherwise it would be presumed that nothing more was due and FCI would not be respon
