Hotel Riviera Executive ... vs The Assistant Provident Fund ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 755 Bom

                                                                       wp3242.16
                                            1


                                            




                                                                          
          IN  THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY 

                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                  
                         WRIT  PETITION NO.3242 OF 2016




                                                 
     Hotel Riviera Executive,
     Near New Indian Airlines
     Office, Jalna Road, Aurangabad,




                                         
     Through its Proprietor,
     Kailash s/o Ramrao Patil,
     Age-60 years, Occu:Business.
                             
                                     ...PETITIONER 

            VERSUS             
                            
     The Assistant Provident Fund
     Commissioner, S.R.O. Aurangabad,
     Tq. & Dist-Aurangabad. 
      

                                     ...RESPONDENT
   



                          ...
        Mr.S.S. Thombre Advocate for  Petitioner.
        Mr.K.B. Chaudhari Advocate for Respondent. 
                          ...       





                   CORAM:  S.V. GANGAPURWALA AND
                           A.I.S. CHEEMA, JJ.

DATE : 18TH MARCH, 2016

ORAL JUDGMENT [PER S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] :

1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner

wp3242.16

and learned counsel for Respondent, finally. Rule.

Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. The orders are passed under Section 14B

and 7Q of the Employees Provident Fund and

Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 ("Act of 1952")

against the Petitioner. The Petitioner is made

liable to pay an amount of Rupees Ten Lakhs and

odd under Sections 14B and 7Q of the Act of 1952.

Mr. Thombre, learned counsel contends that the

Petitioner had initially attended the dates of

hearing but subsequently as the adjourned date was

not communicated to the Petitioner, the Petitioner

could not remain present. According to the learned

counsel, appearance was filed through the Advocate

on 26th August 2015. On that day the concerned

authority was on leave. Hearing was adjourned to

30th September 2015. On 30th September 2015,

hearing was adjourned to 14th October 2015 and 9th

December 2015 was the last date of hearing and on

that date nobody could remain present on behalf of

wp3242.16

the Petitioner and authority passed an order.

According to the Petitioner, order of damages and

interest is harsh. The factum of payment of

Provident Fund earlier, has not been considered by

the authority. The orders are improper. The

Petitioner be given an opportunity to appear

before the authority and put forth its case.

3.

Mr. Chaudhari, learned counsel for

Respondent submits that ample opportunity is given

to the Petitioner, however the Petitioner

consistently either remained absent or sought

adjournments. The authority, after considering all

the papers, passed impugned orders.

4. We have considered the submissions

advanced before us. Perusal of the impugned

orders, it is manifest that the Petitioner did not

remain present for hearing. Orders are passed

under Section 14B and 7Q of the Act of 1952 i.e.

the amount which is adjudicated against the

wp3242.16

Petitioner is in respect of damages and interest

for late payment of the Provident Fund.

5. Considering the fact that the orders

impugned are ex-parte one and the Petitioner could

not remain present for the hearing, we are

inclined to grant one more opportunity to the

Petitioner. However, the Petitioner is required to

deposit the part of the amount. In the result, we

pass the following order:

6. The impugned orders are quashed and set

aside, on the condition that the Petitioner

deposits an amount of Rupees Seven Lakhs with the

Respondent on or before 30th March 2016. The

Petitioner is relegated before the Authority. The

Petitioner shall appear before the Authority on

30th March 2016.

7. The Authority shall decide the

proceedings under Section 14B and 7Q of the Act of

wp3242.16

1952 afresh upon hearing the Petitioner.

8. Rule is accordingly made absolute in

above terms. No costs.

[A.I.S.CHEEMA, J.] [S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] asb/MAR16