Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
E. Padmanabhan, J.
CAMTEX MILL NALLOOR — Appellant
Vs.
THE ASSIST PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE — Respondent
Writ Petition No's. 18519 and 18520 of 1997 and W.M.P. No's. 29209 and 29210 of 1997
Decided on : 25-02-2003
For The Appellant : S. Ravindran, for T.S. Gopalan and Co.
For The Respondent: V. Vibhishanan
The central legal point established in the judgment is that parties should be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present their case, and quasi-judicial authorities should act reasonably and fairly.
Headnote:
Employees Provident Fund - Ex parte proceedings - Sec. 7A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act - 7A(4) - 11.12.1997 - 9.6.1997 - 13.10.1997
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash ex parte orders passed under Sec. 7A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. The petitioner contended that they were denied the opportunity to participate in the proceedings and that the respondent acted arbitrarily.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was denied a fair opportunity to present their case and that the respondent's actions were arbitrary and in violation of Art. 14 of The Constitution. The court quashed the impugned proceedings and remitted the matter back to the respondent for de novo consideration.
Issues: Denial of opportunity to participate in proceedings, arbitrary actions of the respondent, validity of ex parte proceedings, refusal to set aside ex parte proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner should have been afforded a reasonable opportunity to present their case and that the respondent's actions were arbitrary and violated Art. 14 of The Constitution. The court quashed the impugned proceedings and remitted the matter back to the respondent for de novo consideration.
Final Decision: Writ petition No. 18519 of 1997 is allowed and the matter is remitted back to the respondent for de novo consideration after affording an opportunity. W.P.No: 18520 of 1997 is not allowed as the petitioner only challenged the refusal to set aside the ex parte proceedings. Connected WP and WMPs are closed. No costs.
ORDER :
E. Padmanabhan, J.—M/s. Camtex Mill, the petitioner in W.P.No:18519 of 1997 has prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the respondent relating to the proceedings TN/II/33154/Enf.1(5)/97 dated 9.6.197 quash the said order and direct the respondent to give proper opportunity before passing any order under Sec. 7A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act either about the applicability of the Act or about the determination of Contribution and pass such further orders.
2. The very same petitioner in W.P.No: 18520 of 1997 prayed for the relief of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the respondent relating to the proceedings TN/II/33157/Enf.1(5)/KK-II/97 dated 13.10.1997 quash the said order and direct the respondent to give proper opportunity before passing an order under Sec. 7A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act either about the applicability of the Act or about the determination of Contribution and pass such further orders.
3. Heard Mr. S. Ravindran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in both the writ petitions and Mr. V. Vibhishanan, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent in both the writ petitions. With the consent of counsel for either side, the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal.
4. Mr. V. Vibhishanan, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioner has the remedy of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal in terms of Section 7-I of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act and this court is not persuaded to accept the same as no purpose will be served in preferring an appeal in that proceedings of adjudication being ex parte and the proceedings being non speaking. Even if an appeal is preferred the appellate authority will not have materials before him to decide the points in issue. That apart, the writ petitions are pending since 1997 for nearly five years. Therefore, this court will not be justified in directing the petitioner to invoke remedy of appeal at this point of time. Hence the objection raised by Mr. V. Vibhishanan cannot be countenanced.
5. Extension of coverage notice was issued on 26.2.1997 by the respondent covering the petitioner's establishment. An enquiry u/s 7A of the Act was conducted to determine the coverage, dues and to decide the applicability of the Act. The petitioner raised objections contending that the petitioner establishment is not covered by the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. On 3.6.1997. The petitioner's representative ;and Advocate appeared before the respondent and produced documents to establish that the establishment was started on 11.4.1992. The petitioner also contended that it has engaged less than 20 workmen in all at all point of time. The respondent adjourned the enquiry to 9.6.1999 for further evidence.
6. It is the case of the petitioner that on 7.6.1997 itself the petitioner's counsel sought for a short accommodation as he could not appear on 9.6.1997 as he has to appear at Trichirappali. Such a request was handed over to the respondent on 7.6.1997. Without reference to the said request, the respondent proceeded further with the matter on 9.6.1997, determined the date of applicability of the Act on the establishment of the petitioner and also arrived at the dues payable by the petitioner with effect from May 1997. Challenging the said ex parte proceedings, the first writ petition has been filed. The petitioner also moved the respondent to set aside the ex parte proceedings dated 9.6.1997 assigning valid reasons for non appearance and also drawing the attention of the respondent to the earlier request submitted on 7.6.1997 for adjournment. Such application to set aside the ex parte proceedings is maintainable u/s 7A(4) of the Act and the petitioner assigned valid reason namely its Advocate has to go to Trichirappalli on 9.6.1997 besides pointin
