Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
Sanjay Dhar, J.
M/s Goverdhan Lal and Sons and ors. – Petitioners
Versus
State of J&K and others – Respondents
OWP No. 963, 1032, 1033, 1036, 1039, 1228, 1230, 987 of 2015, OWP No. 1383, 1400 of 2012, OWP No. 2664 of 2018, OWP No. 895, 993, 994, 997, 1000 of 2016, WP(C) No. 3723 of 2019
Decided On : 22-03-2024
Recovery Notices - Provident Fund Dues - J&K Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1961, Section 9, Section 21 - The recovery for money due, including provident fund contribution and damages recoverable under Section 16, has to be made by the Government. The Act authorizes the Government to delegate its power to any officer or authority subordinate to it. Recovery orders for damages must be issued by the Provident Fund Commissioner. Recovery notices and orders issued by Additional Provident Fund Commissioners were not by the competent authority and were quashed. The Act requires an authorized officer to conduct an inquiry and offer a reasonable opportunity to the employer before determining the amount due. No such inquiry was conducted in the present cases, and the recovery notices were quashed.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitions challenged recovery notices and orders of recovery for provident fund dues and damages issued by Additional Provident Fund Commissioners. The petitioners argued that the recovery notices and orders were not issued by the competent authority and no inquiry was conducted to determine the amount due.
Finding of the Court:
The recovery notices and orders were quashed as they were not issued by the competent authority and no inquiry was conducted to determine the amount due.
Issues: The first issue was the competence of the authority issuing recovery notices, and the second issue was the determination of dues from the petitioners. The court found that the recovery notices were not issued by the competent authority and no inquiry was conducted to determine the amount due.
Ratio Decidendi: The recovery for money due, including provident fund contribution and damages recoverable under Section 16, has to be made by the Government. The Act requires an authorized officer to conduct an inquiry and offer a reasonable opportunity to the employer before determining the amount due. No such inquiry was conducted in the present cases, and the recovery notices were quashed.
Final Decision: All the writ petitions were allowed, and the recovery notices and orders of recovery of alleged dues as arrears of land revenue were quashed. The respondents were directed to hold an inquiry in each case and proceed further in accordance with the law.
JUDGMENT :
1. The afore-titled 17 writ petitions raise identical questions of law and facts, as such, the same are being taken up together for consideration. By virtue of instant common judgment, the afore-titled cases are proposed to be decided together.
2. Before coming to the common issues of law and facts that arise out of afore-titled writ petitions, it would be apt to give a brief description about the nature of relief sought by the petitioners in the afore-titled writ petitions.
1. OWP No. 963/2015:
3. By virtue of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged recovery proceedings leading to issuance of impugned recovery notice bearing No. JK/J-151/393-95 dated 11.06.2015 issued by respondent No. 6, whereby the petitioner has been asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 6,28,934/- on account of arrears of provident fund contribution, administrative charges and damages on provident fund contribution as also on administrative charges.
2. OWP No. 1383/2012:
4. By virtue of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged notice bearing No. Spl.Coll/J/59/251 dated 24.08.2012 issued by respondent No. 5, whereby recovery on account of provident fund dues to the tune of Rs. 1,17802/-, has been directed to be effected from the petitioner.
3. OWP No. 1400/2012:
5. By virtue of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged notice bearing No. DPFC/J/3725-26 dated 22.07.2008, notice bearing No. DPFC/J/1048-85 dated 24.10.2008, notice bearing No. Addl.PFC/J/4229-30 dated 12.11.2010, notice bearing No. Addl.PFC/J/2413-14 dated 30.11.2011, notice bearing No. DPFC/J/2906-07 dated 08.12.2011 and notice bearing No. Spl.Coll/J/574/293 dated 19.09.2012 issued by respondent No. 5, whereby the petitioner, besides being asked to pay an amount of Rs. 90,58,500/- on account of provident fund contribution, administrative charges, damages on account provident fund contribution and damages on account of administrative charges, notices in respect of recovery have been issued against the petitioner in respect of aforesaid amount.
4. OWP No. 987/2015:
6. Through the medium of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged notice bearing No. JK/J/43/UNC/369-71 dated 10.06.2015 and the consequential proceedings, whereby the petitioner has been asked to deposit an amount of Rs. 19,53,565/- on account of provident fund contribution, administrative charges, damages on provident fund contribution and damages on administrative charges.
5. OWP No. 1032/2015:
7. The petitioner, through the medium of this writ petition, has challenged notice bearing No. JK/J-160/384-86 dated 11.06.2015, whereby he has been asked to deposit an amount of Rs. 6,10,852/- on account of provident fund contribution, administrative charges, damages on provident fund contribution and damages on administrative charges.
6. OWP No. 1033/2015:
8. The petitioner has challenged notice bearing No. JK/J-307/381-383 dated 11.06.2015, whereby he has asked to deposit an amount of Rs. 10,90,681/- on account of provident fund contribution, administrative charges, damages on provident fund contribution and damages on administrative charges.
7. OWP No. 1036/2015:
9. Through the medium of instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged notice bearing No. JK/J-516/390-92 dated 11.06.2015 issued by Additional Provident Commissioner, Jammu, whereby the petitioner has been asked to deposit an amount of Rs. 4,28,830/- on account of provident fund contribution, administrative charges, damages on provident fund contribution and damages on administrative charges.
8. OWP No. 1039/2013:
10. The petitioner in this writ petition has challenged recovery notice bearing No. JK/J-162/360-62 dated 10.06.2015 issued by the Additional Provident Fund Commissioner, Jammu, whereby a recovery of Rs. 8,39,950/- has been sought from the petitioner on account of provident fund contribution, administrative charges, damages on provident fund contribution and damages on administrative charges.
9. OWP No. 1228/2015:
11. The petitioner has chal
AI
The recovery for money due, including provident fund contribution and damages recoverable under Section 16, has to be made by the Government. The Act requires an authorized officer to conduct an inqu....
Recovery order under EPF Act Section 8-F(3)(i) quashed for lacking prior reasonable notice and hearing opportunity; eight-year-old notice stale; natural justice mandatory in quasi-judicial recovery p....
The EPF Act prioritizes workers' dues over all other liabilities, and prohibitory orders must comply with statutory inquiry procedures to protect employees' rights.
The court established that proceedings under the EPF Act must adhere to natural justice, requiring identification of employees and contractors before imposing liabilities.
The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to natural justice principles in administrative proceedings, particularly ensuring that parties are given adequate opportunity to contest findings befor....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that recovery of government dues from a retiring government servant must be based on proper documentation and should adhere to the principles outli....
The Commissioner must conduct an independent inquiry under Section 7A of the Act, ensuring compliance with natural justice principles before determining amounts due from employers.
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 thei....
provision specifically provides that for computing the money value of a benefit accrued to the workman, the Labour Court can appoint the Commissioner for taking necessary evidence. Thus, the scope of....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
