LPA No.960/2011

Page 1 of 20

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

LPA No. 960 OF 2011

VISHNU SECURITY SERVICES

. . . APPELLANT

Through :

Mr. A.K. Singh, Advocate

VERSUS

REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND

COMMISSIONER AND ANR.

… RESPONDENTS

Through:

Mr. Keshav Mohan, Advocates.

CORAM :-

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

A.K. SIKRI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE:

1.

By one paragraph order, the learned Single Judge on 30^th September,

2011, dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant herein observing that

this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition in view of

five-Judges Bench judgment dated 1^st August, 2011 rendered by this Court in

WP(C) No. 6570/2010 entitled Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. v. Union of

India. The learned Single Judge has opined that merely because Employees

Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Appellate

Tribunal) is located in Delhi, it had decided the appeal and that was the

subject matter of challenge in the writ petition, would not be a ground to

2012:DHC:1169-DB

LPA No.960/2011

Page 2 of 20

entertain the writ petition in the High Court of Delhi. This order is assailed in

the present appeal preferred by the appellant.

2.

The appellant is an establishment (since closed) which was the sole

proprietorship concern of Mr. Neerav Khera. This establishment was

providing security services and was having its office in Vadodara, Gujarat. It

started its operation in the year 2002 and in October, 2002, the appellant

applied for Provident Fund code number to the Employees Provident Fund

Organization (EPFO). Code number was allotted by the EPFO on 31.10.2002

with effect from 18.10.2002. According to the appellant, since it did not get

any response from the market nor could get any business, in October, 2002

itself, the appellant relieved all the employees from their services and closed

down the establishment in November, 2002. It is further the case of the

appellant that he himself took employment with M/s SYSCON Engineering

Pvt. Ltd. and is working there since November, 2002. However, unaware of

the fact that with the closure of establishment, he was also required to

surrender the Provident Fund code, he did not take any step in this direction.

On 14.7.2006, the proprietor received summons from the Office of the

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (RPFC), Vadodara, Gujarat directing

him to appear before him in person on 31.7.2006. He appeared and informed

the RPFC about the closure of the establishment. However, the RPFC,

Vadodara passed orders under Section 7A of the Provident Fund Act dated

18.8.2006 directing the appellant to pay the provident fund dues to the tune of

Rs.2,90,417/-. The appellant felt aggrieved by this order and he preferred

appeal before the Appellate Tribunal which is located in Delhi. This appeal

2012:DHC:1169-DB

LPA No.960/2011

Page 3 of 20

was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal vide orders dated 4^th July, 2011

holding that the information obtained shows that the appellant was having

business and was still functioning and further that once the establishment

comes within the ambit of Provident Fund Act, it continues to be covered by

the Act until it is proved that the establishment no more exists. It is this order

dated 4^th July, 2011 which was assailed by the appellant by filing the writ

petition in this Court which has met the fate as aforesaid, namely, dismissal

thereof for want of territorial jurisdiction permitting the appellant to approach

the appropriate forum.

3.

The question which arises for consideration, in these circumstances, is

as to whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ

petition and in the process it needs to be determined as to whether the

principle laid down by five-Judges Bench in Sterling Agro (supra) have been

correctly followed.