SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Gau) 514

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Vijay Bishnoi, Suman Shyam, JJ.
M/s. Popular Tie Up Pvt Ltd., Represented By Its Power of Attorney Holder, Shri Shashi Prakash Singh And Anr. – Appellants
Versus
The State of Assam, rep. By The Commissioner And Secretary To The Govt. Of Assam, Labour And Employment Department And Ors. – Respondents
WA No.23 of 2019, WA No.25 of 2019
Decided On : 02-05-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, Mr. A. Sahewala.
For the Respondents: Mr. N.C. Das, Ms. M. Devi, Mr. D.K. Sarmah.

The court emphasized the importance of the appeal procedure and directed the appellants to avail appropriate remedy by submitting a representation or appeal before the Board of Trustees to raise their grievance regarding the liability to pay interest.

Headnote:

Interest - Provident Fund - The Assam Tea Plantations Provident Fund (i) (and Pension Fund (8) (and Deposit Linked Insurance Fund) Scheme Act, 1955 - Section 11, 11(A), 14, 15, 16 - The Assam Tea Plantations Provident Fund And Pension Fund And Deposit Linked Insurance Fund Scheme (Amendment) Act 2016 - Section 2(k), 15A-15G - The Bengal Public Demand Recovery Act, 1913 - Section 16(a) - Recovery of Provident Fund deposits, interest at statutory rate, and appeal procedure discussed by the court.

Fact of the Case:

The appellants, a Private Limited Company and a Tea Garden, faced financial crisis and failed to deposit Provident Fund contributions. The respondent demanded recovery of the unpaid dues and interest at the statutory rate. The appellants contested the demand, claiming that the interest was not maintainable under the law.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the appellants were liable to deposit the Provident Fund contributions and interest at the statutory rate. However, it noted the ambiguity in the appeal procedure and directed the appellants to submit a representation or appeal before the Board of Trustees to raise their grievance regarding the liability to pay interest.

Issues: Validity of demand for payment of statutory interest on delayed deposit of Provident Fund contribution, applicability of interest rate, and appeal procedure.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the recovery of Provident Fund deposits and interest at the statutory rate was valid. It noted the ambiguity in the appeal procedure and directed the appellants to submit a representation or appeal before the Board of Trustees to raise their grievance regarding the liability to pay interest.

Final Decision: The court disposed of the appeals, granting the appellants liberty to submit a representation or appeal before the Board of Trustees to raise their grievance regarding the liability to pay interest. It suspended the recovery proceeding until the representation/appeal is disposed of by the Board.

1. These 2 (two) intra Court appeals arise out of the common judgement and order dated 04/05/2018 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of 2(two) writ petitions, viz. WP(C) No. 5896/2017 and WP(C) No. 5902/2017 preferred by the present appellants as writ petitioners. Writ Appeal No. 23/2019 arises out of the judgement and order passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 5896/2017 whereas Writ Appeal No. 25/2019 arises out of the order dated 04/05/2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 5902/2017. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in both the writ appeals, hence, we propose to dispose of the same by this common judgement and order.

2. The essential facts, necessary for disposal of the writ appeals, are briefly narrated herein below:-

 

(i) The appellant no.1 is a Private Limited Company having its registered office at No. 32 Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Kolkata in the State of West Bengal and appellant No. 2, viz. Seleng Tea Estate, is a Tea Garden situated at Jorhat, in the State of Assam. The appellant no 2 Tea Estate, which is engaged in manufacturing black tea, is presently being run and managed by the appellant no.1. As per the provisions of “The Assam Tea Plantations Provident Fund (i) (and Pension Fund (8) (and Deposit Linked Insurance Fund) Scheme Act, 1955 (herein after referred to as the Act of 1955) the management was required to deposit Provident Fund contribution of the employer with the “Assam Tea Employees Provident Fund Organization (ATEPFO)” {formerly known as “Assam Tea Plantation Provident Fund and Pension Fund Scheme”}. However, according to the appellants, during the period from 1998 to 2008, the management of the Tea Garden was faced with acute financial crisis as a result of which, it could not deposit the Employers and employees’ contribution of provident fund with the statutory authority.

(ii) On 31/08/2007, the Chairman of the Board of Trustees had issued a notice/ demand to the management of the Tea Company for recovery of Provident Fund Contribution of an amount of Rs 2,42,76,521.17p pertaining to the period from 23/12/1998 to 24/03/2007. Thereafter, on 30/04/2009, another demand was raised by the Chairman, Board of Trustees for an amount of Rs. 73,75,032.29p being the unpaid Provident Fund contribution of employers’ and employees’ pertaining to the period from 08/04/2007 to 01/11/2008. The certificate issued by the Chairman of the Board of Trustee of ATEPFO was thereafter sent to the Deputy Commissioner, Jorhat for recovering the amount. Accordingly, Bakijai cases No. PF/BC/1/2007-08 and PF/BC/2/2007-08 were registered for recovery of the sums of Rs. 2,38,23,023/- and Rs. 73,76,032/-.

(iii) Although, notices were issued to the appellants in respect of both the aforementioned Bakijai proceedings, yet, no significant progress was made in the above proceedings in view of the interim order(s) dated 22/09/2017 operating in WP(C) 5896/2017 and WP(C) No. 5902/2017 preferred by the Management of the Tea Estate. As such, the respondent nos. 2 & 3 as applicants, had moved 2 (two) Interlocutory Applications, registered as IA(C) No. 560/2018 in WP(C) 5896/2017 and IA(C) No. 515/2018 in WP(C) No. 5902/2017, praying for vacating the stay orders. Both the IAs were disposed of by the order dated 06.01.2015 with a direction to bring the Bakijai proceedings to its logical end within 6 (six) months from the date of the order.

(iv) According to the appellants, after the order dated 06/01/2015 was passed by this Court, the appellant no. 2 had issued cheques clearing the outstanding dues in both the Bakijai Cases and obtained Bakijai Clearance Certificate on 26/08/2015. After the said process was completed, the Secretary of the Board has issued the impugned notice dated 08/09/2015 raising a further demand of Rs. 2,94,21,497.77P as 15% statutory interest of the defaulted amount of Provident Fund for the period from 13/12/1998 to 24/03/2007. A further amount of Rs. 70,85,582.89 as interest a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top