Back
2016 Supreme(Tri) 7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA, AGARTALA
S.C. DAS, J.
M/s Rakshakali Industries – Appellant
Versus
The Union of India – Respondent
WP(C) NO.478 OF 2010
Decided On : 14-01-2016
For the Appellant :Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, Sr. Advocate, Ms. M. Choudhury, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. A. Lodh, CGC
The judgment emphasizes the limited scope of judicial review in administrative actions and the authority of administrative/statutory bodies to conduct inquiries and issue orders as per the provisions of the relevant Act.
Headnote:
EPF & MP Act - Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 - Section 7A - 1(3)(b) - Trading and commercial - 7A
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged orders issued by the Regional/Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner under Section 7A of the EPF & MP Act. The Commissioner had found managerial and functional integrity between two firms and made the Act applicable provisionally.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Commissioner was authorized to conduct the inquiry and issue orders as per the Act. It held that the High Court cannot decide the relevancy of documents in a writ petition for a proceeding pending before the administrative authority under a Special Act.
Issues: The issues revolved around the jurisdiction of the Commissioner, the relevancy of documents, and the authority of the High Court to interfere in the day-to-day functions of the administrative/statutory authority.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that judicial review of administrative action is limited and can only occur if the administrative authority acts beyond its jurisdiction or violates principles of natural justice or any provision of the Constitution or other statute.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed with costs, as the Court found it to be without merit.
By filing this writ petition the petitioners challenged order dated 21.07.2010(Annexure-13 to the writ petition) and order dated 25.08.2010(Annexure-14 to the writ petition) issued by the Regional/Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner in a proceeding under Section 7A of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952(hereinafter mentioned as EPF & MP Act).
2. Heard learned senior counsel, Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, assisted by learned counsel, Ms. M. Choudhury for the petitioners and learned CGC, Mr. A. Lodh for respondent Nos.1 to 3. No representation on behalf of respondent Nos.4 and 5.
3. Fact in short, necessary for disposal of this writ petition is that petitioner No.1, M/s Rakshakali Industries is a business firm consisting of two partners, namely Manmohan Paul and Amar Paul and the firm is carrying on the business/trade as traders. The firm was constituted in the year 1975-76. There is another firm, namely M/s Somnath Enterprise consisting of three partners, namely Manmohan Paul, Dipti Paul and Swarup Kanti Dey established on 01.04.1988 and that firm was also dealing with the business/trade. Respondent No.2, the Regional/Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner passed an order in due course on 08.08.2005 that there were managerial and functional integrity in respect of both the firms, namely M/s Rakshakali Industries and M/s Somnath Enterprise and therefore held—
“Considering entire affairs of the case and keeping all aspects of the case in mind, I, Sri K.B. Ghosh Dastider, Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, S.R.O. Agartala, by virtue of power conferred to me u/s 7(A)(a) of the Act decide the applicability dispute by pronouncing an order to the effect that the coverage Notice issued under Notice No.SRO/TR/AS/2479/Enf/ Cov/7305-7307 dated 31.03.2003 making the Act applicable provisionally w.e.f. 21.03.2003 u/s 1(3)(b) of the Act under the schedule head ‘Trading and commercial” stands correct.”
4. The said order dated 08.08.2005 was challenged by petitioner No.1 before the Employees’ Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi by filing ATA No.913(2)/2005. The Tribunal by order dated 10.02.2010(Annexure-3 to the writ petition) disposed the appeal filed by petitioner No.1 and thereby set aside order dated 08.08.2005 passed by the Regional/Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and directed as follows—
“The PF authority did not conduct any inquiry to show that there was a financial and functional integrity between the two units. Hence ordered, the appeal is allowed. The matter is remanded back to the PF authority to determine existence of financial or managerial integrity between the two units and to dispose the matter as per law after giving the appellant the opportunity to place his case. The appellant is directed to appear before the respondent within 2 months from the date of this order and to cooperate with the inquiry. Copy of order be sent to both the parties. File be consigned to record room.”
5. Pursuant to the above order the Regional/Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, i.e. respondent No.2 issued notice to the concerned parties and took up hearing of the case. Notices were given to the petitioners to submit certain documents. In due course, the respondent No.2 passed impugned order dated 21.07.2010 and 25.08.2010. It is an admitted position that the matter is now pending before respondent No.2.
6. It is submitted by learned senior counsel, Mr. Bhowmik that respondent No.2 is traveling beyond his jurisdiction and has asked the petitioners to submit irrelevant documents for the purpose of the proceedings. He has also submitted that M/s Rakshakali Industries and M/s Somnath Enterprise are two separate entities and separate business concern consisting of two partners and three partners respectively and only one of the partners, namely Manmohan Paul is common in both the firms but the respondent No.2 wrongly and illegally was trying to club both the firms with a view to bring it under the purview o
