Bombay High Court
Central Board Of Trustees, Epf ... vs Forest Development Corporation ... on 28 June, 2016
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
wp1161,1162 & 1165-15
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION No.1161 OF 2015
1. Central Board of Trustees, EPF through
RPFC/APFC/Law Official Employees
Provident Fund Organzation, Regional
Office, 132-A Ridge Road,
Raghuji Nagar, Nagpur 440 009.
2. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner,
Regional Office, 132-A, Ridge Road,
Tukdoji Maharaj Chowk,
Raghuji Nagar, Nagpur. . ... ... Petitioners.
..Versus..
Forest Development Corporation
Maharashtra (F.D.C.M) Ltd. Depot
Division, Brahmapuri, Dist.Chandrapur. ... Respondent.
AND
WRIT PETITION No. 1162 OF 2015
1. Central Board of Trustees, EPF through
RPFC/APFC/Law Official Employees
Provident Fund Organzation, Regional
Office, 132-A Ridge Road,
Raghuji Nagar, Nagpur 440 009.
2. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner,
Regional Office, 132-A, Ridge Road,
Tukdoji Maharaj Chowk,
Raghuji Nagar, Nagpur. . ... ... Petitioners.
..Versus..
Forest Development Corporation
Maharashtra (F.D.C.M) Through its
General Manager, West Chanda,
Chandrapur. ... ... Respondent.
.....2/-
::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 07:25:13 :::
wp1161,1162 & 1165-15
2
AND
WRIT PETITION No. 1165 OF 2015
1. Central Board of Trustees, EPF through
RPFC/APFC/Law Official Employees
Provident Fund Organzation, Regional
Office, 132-A Ridge Road,
Raghuji Nagar, Nagpur 440 009.
2. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner,
Regional Office, 132-A, Ridge Road,
Tukdoji Maharaj Chowk,
Raghuji Nagar, Nagpur. . ...
ig ... Petitioners.
..Versus..
Forest Development Corporation
Maharashtra (F.D.C.M) Ltd. Depot
Division, Ballarlshah, Dist.Chandrapur. ... Respondent.
.......................................................................................................................................................
Mr. S.D.Sirpurkar, advocate for petitioner.
Mr. M.M. Sudame, advocate for respondent sole.
.......................................................................................................................................................
CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR,
J.
DATED : 28 th
JUNE, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT.
Since common issues arise in these writ petitions, they are being
decided by this common judgment.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the
Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal thereby setting aside the order
passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner under Section 7-A of
the Employees Provident Fund and Misc. Provisions Act, 1952 (for short, the
.....3/-
wp1161,1162 & 1165-15
said Act.) and thereafter remanding the proceedings for fresh adjudication.
3. In proceedings instituted under Section 7A of the said Act in
relation to assessment of dues payable by the respondent Corporation, an
order came to be passed determining the contribution that was due and
payable under Section 7-A of the said Act after taking into consideration
various vouchers and documents submitted on behalf of the respondent to
the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner. This order was challenged
before the Appellate Tribunal and by the impugned order, the Tribunal held
that in absence of proper identification of the employees and beneficiaries,
the order under Section 7A of the said Act could not be sustained. Hence, the
proceedings were remanded for fresh adjudication.
4. Shri S.D. Sirpurkar, the learned counsel for the petitioners,
relied upon the order passed under Section 7A of the said Act by the
Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and submitted that after considering
the documents submitted by the respondent and in view of the provisions of
para 26 of the EPF Scheme, the dues had been rightly determined. He
submitted that the vouchers showing payments were taken into account and
on that basis the number of labourers were determined. He, therefore,
submitted that the entire exercise conducted by the Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner was by complying with the provisions of Section 7A of the said
.....4/-
wp1161,1162 & 1165-15
Act. He submitted that in view of the provisions of Section 7A(3A), if the
relevant documents are not produced, it would be open for the Authority to
determine the amount of contribution on the basis of other material available
on record. He, therefore, submitted that the Appellate Authority was not
justified in remanding the proceedings.
5. Shri M.M. Sudame, the learned counsel for the respondent,
supported the impugned order. According to him, in absence of any
identification of the workers and beneficiaries, no purpose would be served
in directing the respondent to pay contribution. According to him,
identification of the workers was material considering the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (Food Corporation of India Vs. Provident Fund
Commissioner and others) (1990) 1 SCC 68. He also submitted that it has
been held by this Court in (Sandip Dwellers Pvt. Ltd. Vs/ Union of India and
others) 2006 III CLR 748 that the dues should not be assessed merely on
the basis of vouchers and books of accounts. He, therefore, submitted that
the Tribunal rightly remand of the proceedings.
6. The material on record indicates that at an earlier point of time
the Tribunal had remanded the proceedings to redetermine the dues after
identifying the employees and beneficiaries. In other words, the aspect of
identification of employees was found to be relevant by the Tribunal.
.....5/-
wp1161,1162 & 1165-15
However, the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner under Section 7A of
the said Act again proceeded to determine the dues on the basis of vouchers
and books of accounts prepared by the respondent. The Tribunal therefore
observed that the purpose for which the proceedings were remanded was not
served. Considering the purpose for which the proceedings were remanded
and considering the legal position laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Food Corporation of India that has been followed by this Court
in Sandip Dwellers Private Limited (supra), I do not find that the Tribunal
committed any error in directing fresh adjudication in the light of this law in
the present facts.
In view of aforesaid, I do not find that any error is committed by
the Tribunal in directing remand of the proceedings. It is already open for
the petitioners to undertake the exercise of identifying all employees and
beneficiaries and thereafter claim the dues.
In view of aforesaid, the writ petitions are dismissed, with no
order as to costs.
JUDGE
Hirekhan
...../-
