Back
2023 Supreme(All) 2287
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.
M/S Continental India Private Limited - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India And 4 Others - Respondents
WRIT-C NO.13087 OF 2023.
Decided On : 28-11-2023
Important Points
Subject
Labor Law - Writ Jurisdiction
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Alternative remedies - Court reaffirmed that writs should not be entertained when alternative statutory remedies are available unless specific exceptions apply. (Paras 8 and 9).
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged orders imposing damages of Rs.8,91,69,116 and interest of Rs.4,28,71,452 for late remittance of provident fund contributions dating back to periods from 1996 to 2016. The petitioner contended there was no delay on their part, having deposited the required amounts on time but faced administrative delays in updating records.
Findings of Court:
The court quashed the impugned orders due to the failure to provide an opportunity for the petitioner to present their case and directed a fresh decision after considering all relevant details.
Issues: The main issues were the enforcement of natural justice principles and whether alternative remedies barred the writ petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that procedural fairness is critical; therefore, actions taken without proper hearing are invalid. The requirement to consider the timely deposit of funds is paramount.
Result: The writ petition is allowed and orders are quashed.
For the Petitioner: Sharad Chandra, Sankalp Narain, Sharad Chandra
For the Respondents: A.S.G.I., Jagdish Pathak, Udit Chandra
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition seeks to quash orders made under epf act. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. alternative remedies must be exhausted before writ. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. allegations of violation of natural justice raised. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. writ petition entertained due to natural justice violation. (Para 14) |
| 5. impugned orders quashed, matter remitted for fresh decision. (Para 15) |
| 6. final orders to be issued by authorities within two months. (Para 16 , 17) |
JUDGMENT
Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan, J.
Heard Mr. G.K. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sharad Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Udit Chandra, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3 and Mr. Gautam Kumar Upadhaya, learned counsel for respondent no.1.
2. The petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to quash the impugned orders dated 31.03.2023 bearing Nos.139811 and 139812 respectively passed on the same date by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I, Regional Officer, Meerut whereby he has imposed a damage to the tune of Rs.8,91,69,116/- upon the petitioner as well as M/s Modi Rubber Limited under Section 14B of Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (herein after referred to as the "Act of 1952") and has also imposed interest on delayed payment under Section 7Q of the Act of 1952 to the tune of Rs.4,28,71,452/- which has been levied on the petitioner as well as M/s Modi Rubber Limited, Modi Nagar, Ghaziabad.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the proceedings under the Act of 1952 were initiated by issuing summons under Section 14B alongwith Section 7Q of the Act of 1952 for belated remittance of contribution towards employees provident fund for the period 01.04.1996 to 16.05.2016 which was served upon the petitioner on 16.05.2016 despite the fact that the requisite amount in respect of contribution of employees towards the employees provident fund had already been deposited in the bank account of Regional Provident Fund Department and there was no lapse on the part of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the aforesaid notice, a written submission dated 28.06.2016 was preferred by the petitioner, thereafter, a letter dated 01.07.2016 was preferred by the petitioner requesting the Provident Fund Commissioner to further implead M/s Modi Rubber Ltd. Modi Nagar, Ghaziabad and M.R.L. Employees Provident Fund Trust through its trustees in the present proceedings for ascertaining the relevant facts with regard to actual remittance, which was made of the contribution towards the employees provident fund in the year 2013-2014. The summons as served upon the petitioner on 16.05.2016 mentions about the illegal assessment and imposition of damages and interest. As already stated, a detailed written submission as well as an impleadment application was also moved by the petitioner.
4. The proceedings commenced before the Assistant/Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and hearing in the matter took place on several dates. During the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, a letter dated 20.09.2017 was preferred by the petitioner requesting for providing certain information and documents and further mentioning that there was no delay in remittance of contribution towards the employees provident fund in as much as in the period from 14.06.2013 till 24.01.2014, sum to the tune of Rs.32,87,93,283/- has already been deposited in the bank account of the department and the said amount has already been realized on different dates that being 20.06.2013, 13.08.2013, 09.09.2013 and 17.02.2014. Some clarification was sought by the concerned officer to which a proper reply was submitted. Several letters were issued as requested by the petitioners to the parties concerned and ignoring the reply, the order impugned has been passed, hence the present petition has been filed.
5. A preliminary objection has been raised by learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3 regarding maintainability of the writ, as there is an alternative remedy
