Back
2017 Supreme(All) 2638
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.
M/S Modern Lock Manufacturing Company and Another - Appellant
Versus
E.P.F. Appellate Tribunal and 3 Others - Respondent
Writ C No. 11833 of 2017
Decided on : 23-03-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Brij Bhushan Paul, Anand Prakash Paul
For the Respondent: C.S.C., A.S.G.I., Sachindra Upadhyay
A litigant should not suffer for the fault of their counsel, and the court may quash an impugned order if it is in the interest of justice.
Headnote:
Employees Provident Fund - Applicability of Act to Trading Firm - Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (EPF Act) - Section 7-A - Section 14 - Section 19 - The court discussed the applicability of the EPF Act to a trading firm engaged in the trading of locks manufactured by third parties. The key legal provisions of Sections 7-A, 14, and 19 were interpreted to determine the coverage of the Act on the petitioner firm. The court emphasized that a litigant should not suffer for the fault of their counsel and cited relevant case laws to support its decision to quash the impugned order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner firm, engaged in trading locks, contested the applicability of the EPF Act, citing that it had only 14 workers and thus the Act did not apply. The firm's appeal to the Appellate Authority was dismissed due to a 25-day delay in filing, attributed to the advocate's personal problems.
Finding of the Court:
The court quashed the impugned order, emphasizing that a litigant should not suffer for the fault of their counsel. It directed the petitioner firm to deposit a cost of Rs.35,000 within three days, and if done, the appeal would be considered and decided by the Appellate Authority on its merits within two weeks.
Issues: The issues revolved around the applicability of the EPF Act to the petitioner firm, the dismissal of the appeal due to a delay in filing, and the responsibility of the advocate in causing the delay.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a litigant should not suffer for the fault of their counsel, citing relevant case laws to support its decision. It emphasized that the impugned order cannot sustain and quashed it.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with the direction for the petitioner firm to deposit a cost of Rs.35,000 within three days, following which the appeal would be considered and decided by the Appellate Authority on its merits within two weeks.
1. M/s Modern Lock Manufacturing Company, Aligarh through its partner Umesh Kumar is before Court assailing the order dated 21.2.2017 passed by the first respondent i.e. Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi.
2. Record in question reflects that the petitioner firm is engaged in the trading of locks manufactured by the third parties. For this purpose, it had engaged 14 workers. The provisions of Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (in short "the Act") are not applicable to it. On 20.3.2012 the Labour Enforcement Officer, Aligarh had inspected the petitioner firm and found that 14 workers were employed in the petitioner firm. On 16.5.2011 Engineering Karamchari Sangh, Aligarh had made certain complaint to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Kanpur alleging that the firm was violating the provisions of the Act. Consequently, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Kanpur had directed the second petitioner i.e. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Agra to enquire about the correctness of such complaint but till date the second respondent has not submitted any report to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner.
3. On 27.9.2012, one Ravinder Singh, EPF Inspector visited the petitioner firm and submitted a report to the second respondent. On the basis of the said report the second respondent had proceeded to issue a notice on 15.10.2012 mentioning therein that 23 workers were employed in the petitioner firm and as such the firm is under legal obligation to ensure compliance of the Act. On the basis of certain ex-parte proceedings, on 15.10.2012 the second respondent had issued Certificate No.EPF/SRO/Agra/ENF/UP/54959 to the petitioner firm. In response to the said notice the petitioner had responded to the second respondent with categorical stand that at the relevant point of time there were only 14 workers employed in the firm, as such the provisions contained under the Act are not applicable. The proceedings were finalised way back on 18.10.2013 by the second respondent and the said finalisation was exparte against the petitioner firm. The petitioner firm filed restoration application/objection on 26.11.2013 and again filed the application on 27.3.2014 for recalling the order dated 18.10.2013. The said action has been assailed by the petitioner in Writ Petition No.29102 of 2014 (M/s Modern Lock Manufacturing Co. & Anr. v. Asstt. Commissioner, E.P.F. & Anr.), which was disposed of on 1.9.2014.
4. On 20.9.2014 the Labour Enforcement Officer, Aligarh again inspected the business premises of the petitioner and found that the petitioner firm had employed 14 workers. Thereafter the second petitioner issued several notices to the petitioner but on each date the case was adjourned. On 22.6.2016 the Labour Enforcement Officer visited the business premises of the petitioner and found that 14 workers are employed in the petitioner firm. In response to the directives so issued by this Court, the second respondent had finalised the proceedings under Section 7-A of the Act on 26.7.2016 and passed an order that the petitioner firm is rightly covered under the Act and had directed the department to proceed for assessment of dues accordingly. The petitioner firm had proceeded to file restoration/ review application and prayed for recalling the ex-parte order. The said application was rejected by the second respondent on 27.10.2016. The petitioner had preferred Writ C No.58955 of 2016 for following reliefs:-
"(i) issue writ of certiorari calling for record of the case, quashing the impugned orders dated 15.10.2012, 18.10.2013, 26.7.2016 and 27.10.2016 passed by respondent no.1 (Annexure Nos.4, 10, 20 and 22 respectively);
(ii) issue writ, order or direction in the nature of declaration that the provisions of Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 are not applicable to the petitioner firm as there are 14 workers only in its employment and direct the respondent no.1 a
