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

2006 Supreme(MP) 537

2006(3) JLJ 15
Rajendra Menon, J.
Devi Ahilya Bai Ghatge Uccha Shiksha Samiti and another v.
State of M.P. and others
Writ Petition No. 1900 of 2006;
Decided on 19.4.2006.

Advocates:
D.K. Agarwal for petitioners

Headnote:(1) Employee‘s Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 -- Ss. 7A(1), 7A(2) and 7A(3A) -- Civil P.C., 1908 -- Ss. 27 to 32 -- sub-sections (2) and (3A) of S. 7A of the Act -- operate in different eventualities -- authority exercising powers under sub-section (2) may issue non-bailahle warrant for production of documents, etc.

       In the pending proceeding, respondent No.3 had issued summons to the petitioners vide Annexure P-4 dated 25 October 2005 directing them to produce various documents as indicated therein. In the summons issued, petitioners‘ establishment was directed to produce the record on 16 November 2005. Thereafter, various proceedings have taken place, petitioner No.2 had appeared on 5 December 2005, he was granted bail on the said date and was directed to produce the record. However, in spite of various dates being granted when records were not produced, impugned order has been passed directing for issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest against petitioner No.2. [Para 2

       Held : Both the sub-sections, namely, sub-section (2) and subsection (3A) operate under different eventualities. Sub-section 3(A) contemplates a provision where the employer, employee or any other person required to attend the inquiry under sub-section (1) fails to attend such inquiry without assigning any valid reason or fails to produce any document or to file any report or return when called upon to do so, the officer conducting the inquiry may decide the applicability of the Act or determine the amount due from any employer, as the case may be, on the basis of the evidence adduced during such inquiry and other documents available on record. Accordingly, in such case this section entitles the authority concerned to proceed ex parte and determine the amount due on the basis of the material available on record on the other hand, sub-section (2) empowers the authority to take coercive step for compelling and enforcing attendance of a person and for production of documents. Merely because the authority has power to proceed ex parte in the matter, it cannot be construed that the authority is not empowered to exercise the powers under sub-section (2), it is for the authority concerned to proceed in the matter in the facts and circumstances of a particular case and if the authority concerned wants to proceed under sub-section (2) for conducting proper inquiry, petitioners cannot make any grievance on the ground that the authority should proceed under sub-section (3A) of section 7 A of the Act of 1952. This question is also required to be considered from a different angle. While making assessment of the Provident Fund dues to be paid by the employer and the contribution to be recovered from the employee, determination of the amount of contribution becomes very relevant and if for calculating the said amount, records like wages register, balance sheet, etc., are necessary, it is for the competent authority to take a decision in the matter as to whether he will fix the amount of contribution after going through the records or proceed on the basis of his own assumptions. Discretion exercised by the authority insisting upon production of documents cannot be questioned until and unless it is established that the same is arbitrary and vitiated by malafides. 1976 JLJ 242, 2005(II) LLJ 728, AIR 1955 SC 425, (1980)4 SCC 738 and (2000)1 SCC 607 distinguished. [Para 7

       (2) Constitution of India -- Arts. 226 and 227 -- Civil P.C., 1908 -- S. 32(d) -- authority having power to issue warrant of arrest under S. 32(d) of the Code -- power exercised for legal and proper purpose -- neither arbitrary nor illegal -- no interference can be made under writ jurisdiction.

       Factual aspect of the matter indicates that the petitioners were taking different stands and the authority conducting the inquiry concluded that the petitioners are not cooperating in the inquiry by producing proper records, and therefore, coercive step has been taken. Discretion exercised by the competent authority, namely, respondent No.3 in taking recourse to the aforesaid coercive step in the backdrop of the facts that have come on record cannot be termed as arbitrary or illegal warranting interference in these proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. Once it is held that the authority conducting inquiry under section 7 A of the Act of 1952 is empowered to take recourse to the coercive step contemplated under section 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure and when it is also found that the power is exercised on proper consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, no case for interference is made out by this Court. [Para 15

       (3) Civil P.C., 1908 -- Ss. 27 to 32 -- Employees‘ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 -- S. 7A(2) -- authority proceeding under S. 7A(2) of the Act -- has power of civil Court provided under Ss. 27 to 32 of the Code. [Para 8

       ¼1½ deZpkjh Hkfo";fuf/k vkSj izdh.kZ mica/k vf/kfu;e] 1952 && /kkjk 7d¼1½] 7d¼2½ rFkk 7d¼3½ && flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && /kkjk 27 ls 32 && vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 73 dh mi/kkjk ¼2½ rFkk ¼3d½ && fHkUu&fHkUu laHkkO;rkvksa esa izofrZr gksrh gS && mi/kkjk ¼2½ ds v/khu ‘kfDr iz;qDr djus okyk izkf/kdkjh nLrkost vkfn is‘k fd, tkus ds fy, xSj&tekurh okjaV tkjh dj ldrk gSA

       yafcr dk;Zokgh esa izR;FkhZ Ø-3 us mikca/k ih&4 fnukad 25 vDVwcj 2005 }kjk ;kphx.k dks mlesa ;Fkk minf‘kZr fofHkUu nLrkost is‘k djus dk funs‘k fn;k x;k FkkA rRi‘pkr~ fofHkUu dk;Zokfg;k¡ gqbZ gSa] ;kph Ø-2] 5 fnlacj 2005 dks milatkr gqvk Fkk] mDr fnukad dks mldh tekur eatwj dh xbZ Fkh vkSj mls vfHkys[k is‘k djus dk funs‘k fn;k x;k FkkA rFkkfi] vusd rkjh[ksa eatwj fd, tkus ds i‘pkr~ rc vfHkys[k is‘k ugha fd;k x;k] ;kph Ø-2 ds fo:) fxj¶rkjh dk xSj&tekurh okjaV tkjh fd, tkus dk funs‘k nsrs gq, vkf{kIr vkns‘k ikfjr fd;k x;kA ¼iSjk 2

       vfHkfu/kkZfjr % nksuksa mi/kkjk,¡] vFkkZr~ mi/kkjk ¼2½ vkSj mi/kkjk ¼3d½ fHkUu&fHkUu laHkkO;rkvksa ds v/khu izofrZr gksrh gSaA mi/kkjk ¼3d½ eas ;g mica/k vuq/;kr gS fd tgk¡ fu;kstd] deZpkjh ;k vU; dksbZ Hkh O;fDr ftldk mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu tk¡p esa milatkr gksuk visf{kr gS] dksbZ fof/kekU; dkj.k fn, fcuk ,slh tk¡p esa milatkr ugha gksrk ;k ek¡xs tkus ij nLrkost is‘k ugha djrk vFkok fjiksVZ ;k fooj.kh Qkby ugha djrk] tk¡p djus okyk vf/kdkjh vf/kfu;e ds ykxw gksus dk fofu‘p;u dj ldrk gS vFkok ;FkkfLFkfr] ,slh tk¡p ds nkSjku is‘k fd, x, lk{; vkSj vfHkys[k ij miyC/k vU; nLrkostksa ds vk/kkj ij fu;kstd }kjk ‘kks/; jde vo/kkfjr dj ldrk gSA rnuqlkj] ,sls ekeys esa ;g /kkjk lacaf/kr izkf/kdkjh dks ,di{kh; dk;Zokgh djus vkSj vfHkys[k ij miyC/k lkexzh ds vk/kkj ij ‘kks/; jde vo/kkfjr djus ds fy, izkf/kd`r djrh gS] nwljh vksj mi/kkjk ¼2½ O;fDr ds milatkfr ds fy, vkSj nLrkost is‘k djus ds fy, foo‘k vkSj ck/; djus ds fy, izkf/kdkjh dks l‘kDr djrh gSA dsoy blfy, fd izkf/kdkjh dks ekeys esa ,di{kh; dk;Zokgh djus dh ‘kfDr gS] ;g vFkkZUo;u ugha fd;k tk ldrk fd izkf/kdkjh mi/kkjk ¼2½ ds v/khu ‘kfDr;k¡ iz;qDr djus ds fy, l‘kDr ugha gS] fdlh fof‘k‘V ekeys ds rF;ksa vkSj ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa dk;Zokgh lacaf/kr izkf/kdkjh dks djuk gksrh gS rFkk ;fn lacaf/kr izkf/kdkjh mfpr tk¡p djus ds fy, mi/kkjk ¼2½ ds v/khu dk;Zokgh djuk pkgrk gS rc ;kphx.k bl vk/kkj ij f‘kdk;r ugha dj ldrs fd izkf/kdkjh dks lu~ 1952 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 7d dh mi/kkjk ¼3d½ ds v/khu dk;Zokgh djuk pkfg,A bl iz‘u ij fHkUu n`f"Vdks.k ls fopkj fd;k tkuk Hkh vko‘;d gSA fu;kstd }kjk lans; Hkfo";fuf/k dh ‘kks/; jde rFkk deZpkjh ls olwy fd, tkus okys va‘knku dk fu/kkZj.k djrs le; va‘knku dh jde dk vo/kkj.k cgqr lqqlaxr gks tkrk gS rFkk ;fn mDr jde dk vo/kkj.k cgqr lqlaxr gks tkrk gS ;fn mDr jde dh lax.kuk djus ds fy, etnwjh jftLVj] rqyuki= vkfn tSls vfHkys[k vko‘;d gksa rc l{ke izkf/kdkjh dks bl ckjs esa fofuf‘p; djuk gksrk gS fd og va‘knku dh jde vfHkys[k ns[kus ds i‘pkr~ fu;r djsxk ;k viuh /kkj.kkvksa ds vk/kkj ij vkxs c<+sxkA nLrkost is‘k fd, tkus dk vkxzg djus okys izkf/kdkjh }kjk iz;qDr foosdkf/kdkj ij rc rd iz‘ufpg~u ugha yxk;k tk ldrk tc rd ;g LFkkfir ugha gks tk, fd og euekuk gS vkSj vln~Hkko ls nwf"kr gSA 1976 ts ,y ts 242] 2005¼2½ ,y ,y ts 728] , vkb vkj 1955 ,l lh 425] ¼1980½4 ,l lh 738 rFkk ¼2000½1 ,l lh lh 607 izHksfnrA ¼iSjk 7

       ¼2½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 226 rFkk 227 && flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && /kkjk 32¼?k½ && izkf/kdkjh ds ikl lafgrk dh /kkjk 32¼?k½ ds v/khu fxj¶rkjh dk okjaV tkjh djus dh ‘kfDr && ‘kfDr oS/k vkSj mfpr iz;kstu ds fy, iz;qDr && iz;ksx u euekuk] u voS/k gh && fjV vf/kdkfjrk ds v/khu gLr{ksi ugha fd;k tk ldrkA

       ekeys ds rF;kRed i{k ls minf‘kZr gksrk gS fd ;kphx.k fHkUu&fHkUu i{kk/kkj ys jgs Fks rFkk tk¡p djus okys izkf/kdkjh dk fu"d"kZ Fkk fd ;kphx.k mfpr vfHkys[k is‘k djuk tk¡p esa lg;ksx ugha dj jgs gSa] blfy, izihM+d dne mBk;k x;k gSA l{ke izkf/kdkjh vFkkZr~ izR;FkhZ Ø-3 }kjk iwoksZDr izihM+d dne mBkus dk vkJ; ysus ds fy, iz;qDr foosdkf/kdkj vfHkys[kxr rF;ksa dh i`"BHkwfe esa euekuk ;k voS/k ugha dgk tk ldrk ftlls lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 226 vkSj 227 ds v/khu bl dk;Zokgh esa gLr{ksi okaNuh; gksA ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd, tkus ij fd lu~ 1952 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 7d ds v/khu tk¡p djus okyk izkf/kdkjh flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 32 ds v/khu vuq/;kr izihM+d dne dk vkJ; ysus ds fy, l{ke gS] rFkk tc ;g Hkh fu"d"kZ gS fd ‘kfDr dk iz;ksx ekeys ds rF;ksa vkSj ifjfLFkfr;ksa ij mfpr fopkj dj iz;qDr fd;k x;k gS rc bl U;k;ky; }kjk gLr{ksi fd, tkus ;ksX; ekeyk fl) ugha gksrkA ¼iSjk 15

       ¼3½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && /kkjk 27 ls 32 && deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/k vkSj izdh.kZ mica/k vf/kfu;e] 1952 && /kkjk 7d ¼2½ && vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 7d¼2½ ds v/khu dk;Zokgh djus okyk izkf/kdkjh dks lafgrk dh /kkjk 27 ls 32 dh v/khu micaf/kr flfoy U;k;ky; dh ‘kfDr izkIr gSaA ¼iSjk 8

ORDER

1. Challenging the action initiated by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Sub. Regional Office, Gwalior, exercising powers in a proceeding pending before him under section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1952") by issuing non-bailable warrant of arrest against petitioner No.2, this petition has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer to quash the order dated 20 March 2006 passed by the said authority issuing non-bailable warrant of arrest and restraining the said respondent from taking action under section 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the CPC").

2. Petitioner No.1 is a society registered under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 1973 and has established certain professional educational institute known as GICT College of Professional Education, Gwalior. Petitioner No.2 is President of the said society which is known as Devi Ahilya Bai Ghatge Uccha Shiksha Samiti. It is settled that the society has less than twenty employees and therefore, the provisions of the Act of 1952 are not applicable to the petitioners' establishment. However, on 31 May 2000, respondent No.3 has issued coverage letter allotting Provident Fund Code No. 15362 and has granted coverage to the petitioner as it has employed more than thirty eight persons on and from 21 July 1997, and thereafter in the inquiry proceeding under section 7 A of the Act of 1952 before respondent No.3, petitioners have raised various objections including applicability of the Act and have also claimed infancy power under section 16(1)(d) of the Act. In the pending proceeding, respondent No.3 had issued summons to the petitioners vide Annexure P-4 dated 25 October 2005 directing them to produce various documents as indicated therein. In the summons issued, petitioners' establishment was directed to produce the record on 16 November 2005. Thereafter, various proceedings have taken place, petitioner No. 2 had appeared on 5 December 2005, he was granted bail on the said date and was directed to produce the record. However, in spite of various dates being granted when records were not produced, impugned order has been passed directing for issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest against petitioner No.2. It is the case of the petitioners that while conducting a proceeding under section 7 A of the Act of 1952, the competent authority, namely, respondent No.3, discharges quasi-judicial function and is not empowered to issue any coercive process like warrant of arrest nor can he compel any person to come and give evidence and produce documents under section 7 A of the Act of 1952 compelling attendance of a witness and taking recourse to the provision for penalty in default as contained in section 32 CPC, is not permissible. It is the case of the petitioners that once the establishment has filed its objection and has produced the available documents, respondent No.3 can at best proceed ex parte in the matter as contemplated in section 7 A sub-section (3A) of the Act of 1952 and is not empowered to enforce attendance of a person by such coercive method by issuing warrant of arrest. Taking me through the provisions of section 7 A of the Act of 1952, so also, sections 27, 28, 29, 30 and 32 CPC, and placing reliance on various judgments, it was argued by Shri O.K. Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioners that in a inquiry under section 7 A of the Act of 1952, the Provident Fund Commissioner or the competent authority is not empowered to issue warrant of arrest for compelling attendance of a person for recording his statement or for producing the documents. That apart, on merit, Shri Agrawal argues that all the documents available with the petitioners having been produced, and therefore, it was not a fit case where extreme step of issuing warrant of arrest was required to be resorted to. Accordingly, contending that the respondent N























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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