IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION Appellate Side Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta WPA 7030 of 2008 M/s Calcutta Club Limited Versus Union of India and Others For the Petitioner : Mr. Ranjay De, Ld. Sr. Adv.

Mr. B. Banerjee, Adv.

Mr. A. A. Bose, Adv.

For the P.F. Authority : Mr. Shiv Chandra Prasad, Adv.

Heard on : 20.08.2025 Judgment on : 22.08.2025 Ajay Kumar Gupta, J:

1. M/s. Calcutta Club Limited being the petitioner herein approaches before this Court challenging the impugned order dated 18.09.2007 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner – (II) thereby determined a sum of Rs. 34,884/- for payment of provident fund and allied dues in favour of employee, Sri Debabrata Ghosh and, amount has been debited from the petitioner’s Bank account.

2. M/s. Calcutta Club Limited is an establishment duly registered under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act) being Code No. WB/9408.

3. Petitioner had engaged four employees. One Mr. Debabrata Ghosh engaged as consultants with a monthly remuneration of Rs. 7,850/- including consultancy fees and incidental allowances for the period from 01.12.2001 to 01.10.2006. The remuneration exceeded the then statutory wages ceiling of Rs. 6,500/- prescribed for compulsory provident fund coverage under the Act. Consequently, Mr. Ghosh qualifies as ‘excluded employees’ as defined under Paragraph 2(f) of the said Employees’ Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Scheme’). 4. Furthermore, the other three employees had previously withdrawn their accumulations in the provident fund account upon retirement or resignation prior to joining the petitioner. Thus, there was no obligation to enrol them as members of the provident fund, since they fell within the category of ‘excluded employees’ within the meaning of paragraph 2(f)(1) of the said Scheme.

5. Suddenly, petitioner received summon from the respondent no. 2 under Section 7A of the Act alleging therein evasion of membership and initiated enquiry under Section 7A of the said Act against the petitioner.

6. In course of enquiry, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation dated 8th September, 2007 and clarified along with all relevant documents including salary slips that Mr. Debabrata Ghosh including others were excluded employees under the said Scheme. However, by order dated 08.09.2007 respondent no. 2 only considered the representation except Mr. Ghosh as excluded employees. Though, the provision is very clear. Mr. Ghosh also falls under the excluded employee. So, there is no question of any liability of the petitioner to contribute the employees or employer’s shares, hence, this writ petition.

7. Mr. De, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that within the meaning of Paragraph 2(f) (1) of the said Scheme, Mr. Ghosh squarely falls within the definition of ‘excluded employee’. However, without considering the representation as well as payslip of Mr. Ghosh, petitioner’s case was being rejected and mechanically passed the order directing the payment of Rs.

34,884/- as provident fund and allied dues in favour of Mr. Ghosh. The petitioner herein seeks the impugned order under challenged is liable to be set aside and the money credited in favour of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner should be refunded to the petitioner along with interest.

8. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the petitioner had filed a review application under Section 7B of the said Act before the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner – (II), respondent no. 3 herein. However, the said review application was also not accepted on the ground that the applicant did not produce anything new materials during the proceeding under Section 7A of the said Act though there was apparently error in the order impugned.

9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the P.F. Authority submitted that the authority ha