An appellate tribunal lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal against an order rejecting a review application. The statutory scheme permits appeals only against the original order, and the tribunal must confine its adjudication to the validity of that original order, ignoring any independent challenge to the review-rejection order.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

Heard Mr. P. K. Roy, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. A. Chakraborty, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners. Mr. K. Kalita, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Oil India Limited and Mr. B. Chakraborty, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Proforma Respondent No.3. None appears on behalf of the Proforma Respondent No.2.

2. The Petitioners herein have assailed the order dated 07.09.2018 passed by the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati in P.F. (Appeal) No.06/2017.

3. The brief facts which led to the filing of the instant writ petition are that the Respondent No.1, during the course of operation, engaged many contractors for execution of various works at various locations. Contract labourers were engaged by those contractors for execution of such contract works. Such contractors were required to deduct and deposit the PF of those contract labourers along with the employees’ contribution which is later reimbursed by the Respondent No.1 Company on submission of bills by the contractors.

4. It is the case of the Respondent No.1 herein that having received frequent complaints regarding irregular/non-deposit of PF subscription of those contract labourers by some of the contractors, the Respondent No.1 Company in order to safeguard the interest of the contract labourers obtained the PF Code from the Competent Authority and the effective date was fixed by the PF Authority as on 01.08.2006.

5. The Proforma Respondent No.2 Association filed a complaint that 350 or more contract labourers were yet to be enrolled under the statutory scheme of Provident Fund. Upon receipt of such complaint, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Tinsukia initiated an enquiry under Para 26B of the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 (for short, 'the Scheme'). Consequently, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Tinsukia issued a notice under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short 'the Act of 1952'). Subsequent thereto, an order was passed on 17.10.2014 under the Act of 1952 thereby levying PF dues of Rs.1,67,09,353/- upon the Respondent No.1 Company.

6. The Respondent No.1 Company thereafter preferred a review application under Section 7B of the Act of 1952 before the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Tinsukia on 07.01.2015. On the ground that there was a delay in filing the said review application and further that the application was not filed in the format as required vide an order dated 08.01.2015, the review application filed by the Respondent No.1 was rejected.

7. Being aggrieved, the Respondent No.1 filed a writ petition before this Court which was registered and numbered as WP(C) No.258/2015. The learned Coordinate Bench vide an order dated 23.01.2015 set aside the said order dated 08.01.2015 and directed the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, SRO, Tinsukia to take on board the review petition filed by the Respondent No.1 and thereafter decide the same on merit after giving due opportunity of hearing to the necessary parties. Vide the said order dated 23.01.2015, the learned Coordinate Bench further had set aside the order dated 19.01.2015 passed under Section 8F of the Act of 1952.

8. In pursuance thereto, the review petition was taken up by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and vide an order dated 10.06.2016, the review application was rejected on the ground that the Respondent No.1 failed to produce any new/relevant records and also failed to undertake verification of the details of the contractual workers during the last one year and four months. On the very date, the Chief Manager