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

2016 Supreme(Ori) 1271

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
S.N. Prasad., J.
ORISSA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION LIMITED - APPELLANT
Versus
REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS - RESPONDENT
W.P.(C) No.3164 of 2012
Decided On : 15-02-2016

Advocates Appeared:
Bijoy Dasmohapatra and B.N. Bhol, Advocates, for the Appellant; Prasanna Kumar Parhi and G. Mohanty, Advocates, S.B.Jena, Advocate, for the Respondent

The main legal point established in the judgment is that a party aggrieved by an order under section 7A of the Act, 1952 has the locus standi to file a review application under section 7B, and authorities must pass reasoned orders and comply with the principles of natural justice.

Headnote:

EPF - Assessment of Provident Fund Dues - Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (Act, 1952) - Section 7A, Section 7B

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner engaged a service provider to provide security services and deducted 10% from the bills to ensure deposit of P.F. dues. The authority initiated a proceeding under section 7A of the Act for default in deposit of P.F. dues by the service provider. The petitioner was not made a party to the order under section 7A and was not communicated with the order. The petitioner filed a review petition under section 7B, which was rejected on the ground of locus standi.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the recovery from the petitioner's account was without authority of law and in violation of the principles of natural justice. The court held that the order rejecting the review application was without any application of mind and not sustainable, and accordingly quashed the order. The matter was remitted before the competent authority to pass an order on the review application in accordance with the law.

Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's locus standi to file a review application under section 7B of the Act and the authority's compliance with the principles of natural justice in passing the order under section 7A.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner was an aggrieved party due to the recovery from their account and had the locus standi to file a review application under section 7B. The court also emphasized the requirement for authorities to pass reasoned orders and comply with the principles of natural justice.

Final Decision: The court quashed the order rejecting the review application and remitted the matter before the competent authority to pass an order on the review application in accordance with the law.

JUDGMENT :

S.N. Prasad, J. - Petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 10.1.2012 passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner(Comp.I), Regional Office, Odisha, Bhubaneswar has filed this writ petition with direction to make specific assessment in respect of the employees deployed by the service provider in the petitioner's establishment and to refund sum of Rs.43,79,823/- which was illegally realised from the petitioner's bank account.

2. Brief facts of the case of the petitioner is that the Orissa State Beverages Corporation Limited, the petitioner, has decided to engage M/s Panther Security Services (opposite party no.3), to provide total security and allied services to the Corporate office and different depots of the petitioner and for that an agreement was entered into in between the petitioner and opposite party no.3 on 23.11.2004 and in pursuance to the same employees were deployed in the petitioner's establishment and the petitioner decided to deduct 10% from the bills of the service provider to ensure deposit of P.F. dues with effect from October,2005 which continued up to June,2009, which was communicated to the office of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vide letter no.1883 dated 19.6.2009 and dated 21.1.2010. Petitioner was served with a notice intimating that a proceeding under section 7A of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1952) was initiated against M/s Panther Security Service for default in deposit of provident fund dues from 1,2007 to 12/2010 and it was intimated by the authority that the said proceeding was concluded on 16.5.2011 and a sum of Rs.43,79,823/- has been assessed, after receiving the said letter petitioner prepared a Banker Cheque bearing No.530930 dated 26.9.2011 for a amount of Rs.17,44,388/- which was withheld from the bills of the service provider but the same was returned vide letter dated 29.9.2011 with communication that a sum of Rs.43,79,823/- had already been realised from the bank account of the petitioner lying in the State Bank of India, IDCO Tower, Bhubaneswar Branch.

It is the case of the petitioner that while passing order under section 7A of the EPF Act,1952 petitioner was neither made a party nor communicated with the order passed under section 7A of the Act,1952 and it is only after the order having been passed under section 7A, request has been made for obtaining certified copy of the order then only it could be known to the petitioner regarding the order which was passed under section 7A of the Act,1952. According to the petitioner assessment was made on the basis of all employees engaged by M/s Panther Security Service from the month of 1/2007 to 12/2010 which were deployed in different organisations besides M/s Orissa State Beverages Limited, petitioner, but it is apparent from the order of assessment that the said assessment was made for the employees deployed in the establishment of Orissa Disaster Management, but it is not known till date, for how many employees the assessment was made. Since it is apparent that the assessment has been made for all the employees of M/s Panther Security Services the petitioner is not liable to pay the entire dues except for the employees deployed in its establishment through Panther Security Services. According to the petitioner services of M/s Panther Security Services was discontinued after August,2009 which was communicated vide letter dated 6.8.2009 and thereafter services of the opposite party no.3 were never been taken but assessment has been made by the authority while passing order under section 7A of the Act,1952 for the period from 1/2007 to 12/2010 along with interest. Case of the petitioner that the order has been passed by the authority under section 7A of the Act, 1952 is behind back which in gross violation of principle of natural justice and without any notice, a sum of Rs.43,79,823/- has been recovered from the bank account of the pe



























































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