Back
RAJBIR SEHRAWAT
Punj Security & Housekeeping Services Private Limited, Village Daddu Majra, Near Dronacharya Stadium, Chandigarh Through Its Director – Appellant
Versus
Employees Provident Fund Organization, Regional Office, Sco 4-7, Secor 17-d, Chandigarh – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Rajbir Sehrawat, J. (Oral) - The petitioner has filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 19.08.2021 (Annexure P-8) received in the month of March, 2022, whereby the review application under Section 7B of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (in short, the EPF Act) has been rejected by respondent No.2 without issuing any notice or affording opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner; along with certain other prayers.
2. The facts as pleaded in the petition are that the petitioner is a registered agency providing security and house keeping services within the territory of Chandigarh. The petitioner had, allegedly, not deposited the EPF contributions as per the provisions contained in the EPF Act. Hence, the respondents-authorities had initiated the proceedings under Section 7A of the EPF Act; for assessing the due amount. During the process the petitioner was granted due opportunity of hearing. After hearing the petitioner an amount of Rs.2,61,18,206/- was assessed by the competent authority. Though the order pa
The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between the provisions of Section 7B of the EPF Act, emphasizing the requirement of opportunity of hearing only under Sub-Section (....
The main legal point established is that orders passed under Section 7-A of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 are appealable under Section 7-I, and the power of re....
The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal filed beyond 120 days from the date of issuance of the order, and cannot condone the delay beyond the said period.
The right to be heard is fundamental; dismissal of a Review Application without a hearing violates natural justice principles.
A Tribunal can recall procedural orders to ensure justice, while substantive reviews require explicit statutory authority, as clarified in the Employees' Provident Funds Act.
The court emphasized that review applications under the Act must afford an opportunity for hearing to the aggrieved party, reinforcing principles of natural justice.
Review petitions must demonstrate apparent errors on record; court cannot re-examine evidence or re-evaluate conclusions from original judgments.
A review petition under Section 7B of the EPF & MP Act is not a de novo hearing; it requires the applicant to establish specific statutory grounds such as discovery of new evidence or error apparent ....
Authorities must adhere to principles of natural justice and provide opportunities for hearing in quasi-judicial proceedings, especially in review applications.
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
