THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
W.A.No.67 of 2019
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)
The present writ appeal is arising out of the order dated
14.11.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.28916 of
2010.
The undisputed facts of the case reveal that proceedings
were initiated against respondent No.2/M/s. Lakshmi Enterprises,
under the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short 'the Act of 1952') and an order was passed under Section 7-A of the Act of 1952. Respondent No.2/M/s. Lakshmi Enterprises was working with respondent No.3/TISCO Limited, Jamshedpur, and the contention of the appellant/ITW India Limited is that the amount was deducted from their bills. The undisputed facts further reveal that an appeal was preferred before the Employees Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal by the present appellant and the appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal, by an order dated 19.08.2010, holding that the present appellant was the principal employer and the amount of Rs.1,70,349/- was rightly deducted by respondent No.3/TISCO Limited. The aforesaid order passed by the Tribunal was challenged by filing the writ petition and the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the work was executed at Jamshedpur, the appellant is having an office at Jamshedpur, the appellant has entrusted the job work to Respondent No.2/ M/s. Lakshmi Enterprises and 2 agreement has been executed at Jamshedpur and 7-A order was passed by the authorities situated at Jamshedpur. It was also observed that an appeal was preferred before the Tribunal, which is in New Delhi.
It is true that the corporate office of the appellant/ITW India Limited is certainly in Hyderabad i.e., Merchant Towers, 5, Road No.4, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. The aforesaid fact has not been disputed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, respondent No.1 in the present writ appeal. While filing the appeal before the Tribunal, the address given in the memo of appeal, which is at page No.23, also reflects that the same address of having head office at Merchant Towers, 5, Road No.4, Banjara Hills, was mentioned. Meaning thereby, right from day one, the present appellant, having its corporate office at Hyderabad, was prosecuting its remedies under the Act of 1952 read with Employees' Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997 (for short 'the 1997 Rules'). The unamended provision i.e., Rule 6 of the 1997 Rules certainly provides for filing of an appeal at the place where the appellant resides. Rule 6 of the 1997 Rules has been later on amended, with effect from 14.01.2016, which provides for filing of the appeal with the Registrar the Tribunal within whose jurisdiction the cause of action has arisen. However, the present case is a case prior to the amendment, which took place in the year 2016.
In the considered opinion of this court, as the appellant is having its corporate office at Hyderabad, it was justified in filing the writ petition before this court and therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition, on the 3 ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to the learned Single Judge to decide it afresh on merits. Office is directed to list the writ petition before the learned Single Judge on 27.12.2022.
With the aforesaid, the writ appeal stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
___________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ _______________________ N. TUKARAMJI, J 13.12.2021 JSU