Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 5468
PATNA HIGH COURT
Mr. Justice P. B. Bajanthri
Mehrotra Engineering Works Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
The Employees Provident Fund Organisation – Respondent
CWJC/13337/2022
A person invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 must consider whether there is an alternative or effective remedy for the resolution of the dispute.
Headnote:
EPF - Damages and Interest - Limitation - Statutory Remedy
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner challenged the order levying damages and interest under sections 14B and 7Q of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, claiming it was a non-speaking order, violated the principle of natural justice, and was barred by limitation.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner had a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 7(I) of the Act and that the petitioner had not made out a case for interference with the impugned order on the ground that it was a premature writ petition.
Issues: Whether the petitioner had exhausted the statutory remedy of appeal before filing a writ petition.Whether the impugned order was a non-speaking order and violated the principle of natural justice.Whether the proceeding initiated under sections 14(B) and 7Q were barred by limitation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Supreme Court decision in State of Jammu and Kashmir Vs. R.K. Zalpuri and others, which held that a person invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 must consider whether there is an alternative or effective remedy for the resolution of the dispute.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, reserving liberty to the petitioner to invoke the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 7(I) of the Act.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13337 of 2022
======================================================
Mehrotra Engineering Works Private Limited a company incorporated under
the Companies Act 1956, having its office at Bela Industrial Estate,
Muzaffarpur 842005, through its Director Sunil Mehrotra aged about 62 years
(male), Son of Dwarka Mehrotra, resident of West of D.M. residence, Juran
Chapra Road No. 1, Muzaffarpur, P.S. Brahmpura, District - Muzaffarpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The Employees Provident Fund Organisation through the Regional
Provident Commissioner-II, Reginal Office Surya Complex, Laxmi Chauk,
Muzaffarpur 842003.
2.
The Regional Provident Commissioner- II, Reginal Office Surya Complex,
Laxmi Chauk, Muzaffarpur 842003.
3.
The Assistant Provident Commissioner, Reginal Office Surya Complex,
Laxmi Chauk, Muzaffarpur 842003.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s
:
Mr. Ashish Giri, Advocate
Mr.Rajan Prakash, Advocate
Mr. Sumit Kr. Jha, Advocate
Ms.Riya Giri, Advocate
For the Respondent/s
:
Mr.Rajiv Kr. Verma, Sr.Advocate
Mr.Madhav Krishna, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 11-01-2023
Mr. Manish Mani, Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner-II, Muzaffarpur is present in Court in pursuant to
earlier order.
In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the
following reliefs:-
i) To issue an appropriate writ, order
or direction in the nature of certiorari for
quashing order dated 25.01.2022 passed by
the Regional Provident Commissioner P II,
contained
in
memo
no.
BR/RO/MUZ/ENF/14B/BRMUZ000136700
Patna High Court CWJC No.13337 of 2022 dt.11-01-2023
2/5
0/ORDER/2188 whereby and whereunder
damages of Rs. 12,39,266/- (Rs. Twelve
Lakhs Thirty Nine Thousand Two Hundred
and Sixty Six only) has been levied upon the
petitioner under section 14B the Employees
Provident fund and Miscellaneous
Provisions Act, 1952.
ii) To issue an appropriate writ,
order or direction in the nature of certiorari
for quashing order dated 25.01.2022 passed
by the Regional Provident Commissioner II,
contained
in
memo
no.
BR/RO/MUZ/ENF/7Q/BRMUZ0001367000
/ORDER/2188 whereby and whereunder
interest of Rs. 9,58,383/- (Rs. Nine Lakhs
Fifty Eight Thousand Three Hundred and
Eighty Three only) has been levied upon the
petitioner under section 7Q the Employees
Provident fund and Miscellaneous
Provisions Act, 1952.
iii) This Hon'ble Court may
adjudicate and hold that the impugned
order levying damages is a non-speaking
and mechanical order inasmuch as the
same does not elaborate upon the
circumstances which weighed with the
adjudicating authority for levying the
damages.
iv) This Hon'ble Court may
adjudicate and hold that the petitioner
cannot be condemned unheard in the
violation of the maxim audi alteram partem.
v)This Hon'ble Court may adjudicate
and hold that the proceeding initiated under
section 14(B) and 7Q are barred by the law
of limitation as the same have been initiated
for the period February 2014 – March
2021?
vi) To grant any other relief or
reliefs which the petitioner may be found
entitled to in the facts and circumstances of
the case."
Patna High Court CWJC No.13337 of 2022 dt.11-01-2023
3/5
Against the impugned order the petitioner has statutory
remedy of appeal under Section 7(I) of Employees Provident Fund
and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. Learned counsel for the
petitioner vehemently contended that he need not exhaust the
statutory remedy of appeal before the Appellate Authority for the
reasons that in the show cause notice the concerned authority has
already determined in levying damages and ordering recovery.
Perusal of the notice it is not evident that the word of
recovery on t
