The validity of an order must be judged by the reasons mentioned in the order itself and cannot be supplemented by additional grounds.

JUDGMENT :

1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 29.05.2015 whereby the petitioner was directed to pay an amount of Rs. 9,46,13,316.00. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 28.07.2015, issued by the Assistant P.F. Commissioner (Compliance) whereby the bankers of the petitioner were directed to credit the amount of Rs.9,46,13,316.00 within 3 (three) days in favour of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (NER), Guwahati.

2. This Court heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. PK Munir as well as Mr. PK Roy, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent authorities. The challenge in the instant proceedings is on the ground that the said impugned order was passed without taking into consideration of Section 16 (1)(c) of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short, “the Act of 1952”) in the proper prospective in as much as the petitioner had framed a set of Rules, known as the Assam Khadi and V.I. Board Contributory Provident Fund Rules, 1962 (for short, “the Rules of 1962”) and the said Rules provide for contributory provident fund in favour of its employees for which the Act of 1952 could not be applied.

3. Mr. P.K. Roy, the learned senior counsel for the respondent authorities per contra had submitted that though the Rules of 1962 provide for a contributory provident fund but the said Rules are not applicable to various categories of staff of the petitioner as it would be apparent from a perusal of Rule 4(3)(ii) & (iii) which stipulates that the daily wage employees of the Board as well employees whose terms of employment are governed by special contracts cannot subscribe to the fund. The learned counsel for the Respondents further drew the attention of this Court to Section 2(f) of the Act of 1952 wherein the term “employee” has been defined and submitted that within the ambit of the said definition employees who are employed by or through a contractor with the works of the establishment would come and therefore the exclusion made by the Rules of 1962 in respect to those contractual employees as well for daily wage employee brings the petitioner within the ambit of the Act of 1952. The learned senior counsel draw the attention of this Court to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Pawan Hans Limited and others versus Aviation Karmachari Sanghanata and others, reported in (2020) 13 SCC 506 and specifically referred to paragraph Nos. 10.2, 10.3, 10.3.1,10.3.2 as well as 10.5. Taking into account the relevance of those paragraphs so cited, the same are reproduced herein under:

“10.2. Sub-section (1) of Section 16 reads as:

“16. Act not to apply to certain establishments.-(1) This Act shall not apply-

(a) to any establishment registered under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1912 (2 of 1912), or under any other law for the time being in force in any State relating to cooperative societies employing less than fifty persons and working without aid of power; or

(b) to any other establishment belonging to or under the control of the Central Government or a State Government and whose employees are entitled to the benefit of contributory provident fund or old age pension in accordance with any scheme or rule framed by the Central Government or the State Government governing such benefits; or

(c) to any other establishment set up under any Central, Provincial or State Act and whose employees are entitled to the benefits of contributory provident fund or old age pension in accordance with any scheme or rule framed under that Act governing such benefits;

(2) If the Central Government is of opinion that having regard to the financial position of any class of establishments or other circumstances of the cases, it is necessary or expedient so to do, it may, by notification in the Official Gazette, and subject to such conditions as may be specified in the notification, exempt whether prospectively or retrospectively,