IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 981 of 2017 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8520 of 2010 With CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8335 of 2017 In LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 981 of 2017 ================================================================

INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED....Appellant(s)

Versus ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER....Respondent(s)

================================================================

Appearance:

MR MANISH R BHATT, SENIOR ADVOCATE assisted by M/S.VIJAY PATEL, ADVOCATE and MUNJAL M BHATT, ADVOCATE for MRS MAUNA M BHATT, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1 for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR NIRZAR S DESAI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ================================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE Date : 08/01/2018

ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE)

1. This appeal under Clause-15 of the Letters Patent is preferred against oral judgment dated 15.07.2016 in Special Civil Application No.8520 of 2010. The appellant herein-original petitioner had challenged the order dated 16.04.2010 passed by the Employees’ Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal conforming the order

NEUTRAL CITATION

undefined

Section 7A of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.

2. Before the learned Single Judge, it was the case that the appellant, being Government of India undertaking, was engaged in production, transportation and marketing of petroleum products at its various Refineries and for the purpose of haulage and housekeeping, for the period between 1991-92 to December 1999, had engaged services of two contractors. In respect of the employees who were employed through such contractors, the amount of PF was being deposited with the authority and as at the relevant time, the employees who were working under those contractors were not given details regarding deposits made with the respondent authority towards PF, initially SCA No.4505 of 2001 came to be filed and disposed of by an order dated 11.12.2001. Thereafter, under letter dated 11.05.2004, the authority called upon the petitioner to deposit certain amount, against which by communication dated 17.05.2004, the petitioner brought to the notice of the authority that in absence of verification of the records of the contractors, such directions could not have been issued. Despite this and without considering the submissions of the petitioner, an order dated 25.05.2004 came to be

NEUTRAL CITATION

undefined

the petition. 3. Learned Single Judge of this Court, after considering two judgments of the Apex Court in cases of Food Corporation of India vs. Provident Fund Commissioner reported in 1990 (1) SCC 68 and Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. vs. Employees' State Insurance Corporation, reported in (2008) 3 SCC 247, quashed and set aside the orders dated 25.05.2004 by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and 16.04.2010 by the Tribunal and remanded the proceedings to the original adjudicating authority. At the same time, directions were also issued to the petitioner-Corporation to deposit the amount with the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, which was to be maintained in a separate account.

4. Learned Senior Advocate for the appellant submitted that though the impugned orders have been set aside and the matter is remanded, to be considered afresh, yet on account of the fact that the relevant period during which the services of the employees were hired through the contractors was from the period between 1991-92 to December 1999, whereas the employees have continued even for the period prior thereto under the same contractors and it was only for the administrative convenience that PF code number was continued even during

NEUTRAL CITATION

undefined

therefore, there is apprehension on the part of the petitioner that the petitioner may have to incur the liability even for the period prior thereto when the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document