Bombay High Court
Maharashtra Gramin Bank, Head ... vs Union Of India, Through The ... on 13 July, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
1 J-WP-123-13.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 123 OF 2013
Maharashtra Gramin Bank,
Head Office at Shivajinagar Nanded
through its General Manager
Mr. G.G.Wakade, General Manager. ..... PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1. Union of India,
Through the Secretary
Ministry of Labour,
Shram Shakti Bhawan,
Rafi Marg,
New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The Central Provident Fund
Commissioner, Employees
Provident Fund Organization,
Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan,
14, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi 110 006.
3. The Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner, 341,
Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan,
Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 051.
4. Shri E. S. Gaikwad,
Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner, (Compl),
Sub Divisional Officer,
Plot No.2, Town Center,
Commercial Area, CIDCO,
Aurangabad 431 003.
4A. Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner, (Compl),
Sub Divisional Officer,
Plot No.2, Town Center,
Commercial Area, CIDCO,
Aurangabad 431 003.
::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2017 23:47:16 :::
2 J-WP-123-13.odt
5. Maharashtra Regional Rural Bank
Employees Union (Recognized-AIBEA),
Through General Secretary.
6. Maharashtra Gramin Bank Karmachari
Sanghathana (NOBW), Through the
General Secretary.
7. Maharashtra Gramin Bank Employees
Federation, Through the General
Secretary.
8. Maharashtra Gramin Bank Officers
Organization (NOBO) through the
President.
9. Maharashtra Regional Rural Bank
Officers Association (AIBOA)
through the General Secretary.
10. Maharashtra Gramin Bank Officers
Federation, Through the General
Secretary.
Respondents Nos.5 to 10 are
Residents of Nanded,
C/o Maharashtra Gramin Bank,
Head Office, Shivajinagar, Nanded. ... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri M. G. Bhangde, Senior Counsel with Shri S. N. Tapdia, Adv. for the petitioner.
Shri R. S. Sundaram, Advocate for the respondent Nos.1, 3, 4 and 4-A.
Shri Uday Dastane, Advocate for the respondent No.6.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:-
SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
ARUN D. UPADHYE, JJ.
DATED :-
13/07/2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Smt. Vasanti A Naik, J.)
3 J-WP-123-13.odt
By this writ petition, the Maharashtra Gramin Bank
seeks a direction against the provident fund authorities to refund the
employers provident fund contribution, paid in excess, with interest @
18 % per annum. The petitioner has challenged the communications of
the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner rejecting the request of the
petitioner for refund of the amount.
Few facts giving rise to the petition are stated thus:-
The provisions of The Employees' Provident Funds and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and the scheme framed thereunder
were made applicable to the petitioner - bank w.e.f. 01/09/1979. As
per the provisions of the Act and the scheme, employees provident fund
contribution to the extent of 10 % of the salary could have been
deducted from the salary of its employees and the bank was required to
pay an equal amount towards the employers contribution. On
29/08/1981, a scheme was framed by the petitioner - bank for granting
better benefits pertaining to provident fund to its employees and the
bank was exempted from the applicability of the provisions of the Act
and the scheme. As per the scheme framed by the bank, there was no
ceiling on the contribution that could be made by the employees. The
petitioner - bank had to make contribution that matched the
contribution made by the employees. On 14/10/1991, the provident
fund authorities revoked the exemption granted to the bank. The bank,
then decided to apply the provisions of the Act and the scheme to its
4 J-WP-123-13.odt
employees once again, so that deductions could be made from the
salary of the employees only to the extent of 10% as per clause 2(f) of
the Statutory Scheme. According to the bank, since the exemption was
revoked and the petitioner was suffering huge losses due to the scheme
that was in operation from 29/08/1981, a notice of change under
Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act was given by the petitioner -
Bank on 20/06/1998. The employees of the bank were aggrieved by the
said notice of change and they served a strike notice on the bank, dated
26/09/1998. The Central Government referred the dispute between the
bank and its employees to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
in July, 2001. During the pendency of the proceedings before the
Tribunal, the bank continued to deduct the amount as per the scheme
of the bank and deduction of the salary to the extent of more than 10 %
was made. By the Judgment and Award dated 25/10/2002, the
Tribunal held that the action on the part of the bank to reduce the rate
of contribution of provident fund of it's employees was not just. The
Tribunal held that the workmen of the bank, that had submitted their
statement of claim would continue to draw the benefit of getting equal
contribution towards provident fund from the bank according to
existing practice, without any ceiling on the wages. The award of the
Tribunal was challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition
No.2751/2003. While admitting the Writ Petition, the learned Single
Judge of this Court directed the petitioner - bank to contribute the
5 J-WP-123-13.odt
provident fund without any ceiling on wages. The Court however,
restrained the provident fund authorities from disbursing the amount
that was paid by the petitioner - bank to the authorities as per the
impugned order, over and above the ceiling limit, to the employees.
Therefore, by way of interim relief, the provident fund authorities were
restrained from disbursing the part of the amount of contribution of the
petitioner - bank that was paid in excess of the ceiling prescribed by
Clause 2(f) of the Statutory Scheme. The writ petition was allowed by
the learned Single Judge by the Judgment dated 18/09/2008. The
learned Single Judge held that the bar of Section 12 of The Employees'
Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act would not operate, as
was held by the Tribunal in the impugned award and the petition would
succeed. The learned Single Judge therefore allowed the writ petition
by making the rule absolute in terms of prayer clause (1) by which the
petitioner - bank had sought for quashing and setting aside of the order
of reference made by the Central Government, the award of the C.G.I.T.
dated 25/10/2002 and the couple of communications of the provident
fund authorities that directed the petitioner to continue with the
scheme framed by the petitioner - bank for its employees. Being
aggrieved by the Judgment of the learned Single Judge allowing the
writ petition, the provident fund authorities and the Union of the
employees filed a Letters Patent Appeal. The Letters Patent Appeal
bearing No.349/2008 was dismissed by the order dated 14 th November,
6 J-WP-123-13.odt
2008 and the Judgment of the learned Single Judge was upheld. The
Union of the employees challenged both the judgments of the High
Court before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a Special Leave Petition. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court, by the Judgment dated 9 th September, 2011
dismissed the appeal filed by the employees union after holding that the
view expressed by the learned Single Judge and affirmed by the
Division Bench of the High Court is just, fair, appropriate and in
consonance with the provisions of The Employees' Provident Funds and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act. After the Hon'ble Supreme Court
dismissed the appeal filed by the employees union in September, 2011,
the petitioner - bank asked the provident fund authorities to refund
their part of the excess contribution that was made after the issuance of
the notice of change till the learned Single Judge allowed the writ
petition filed by the petitioner. By the impugned communications, the
provident fund authorities rejected the request of the bank for refund of
the amount on the ground that the voluntary contribution deducted
from the employees' salary or wages, as also the contribution of the
employer - bank had been credited to the account of the employees as
per the statutory returns submitted by the bank. Being aggrieved by the
refusal on the part of the provident fund authorities to refund the
amount that was paid by the petitioner - bank in excess towards the
employers contribution, the bank has filed the writ petition. In the
aforesaid set of facts, the petitioner - bank has sought a direction
7 J-WP-123-13.odt
against the respondent - provident fund authorities to refund the
amount that was paid towards the employers contribution, in excess.
Shri Bhangde, the learned senior counsel appearing for
the petitioner - bank submitted that as per the interim order passed by
the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.2751/2003, the provident
fund authorities were restrained from disbursing the excess amount that
was paid by the bank towards the employers contribution. It is
submitted that by the interim order dated 10 th February, 2004, the
provident fund authorities were restrained from disbursing the part of
the amount of contribution of the petitioner - bank that was paid over
and above the ceiling prescribed by Clause 2(f) of the Statutory
Scheme. It is submitted that though the C.G.I.T. had held that the action
on the part of the petitioner - bank of reducing the rate of contribution
towards the provident fund was not just and the workmen - employees
would continue to draw the benefit of getting equal contribution
towards the provident fund from the bank as per its existing practice,
the award of the Tribunal was set aside by the learned Single Judge. It
is submitted that the learned Single Judge had not only set aside the
award of the Tribunal but had also quashed and set aside the order of
the Central Government referring the matter to the Industrial Tribunal
dated 20/07/2001, as also the communications of the provident fund
authorities asking the petitioner - bank to continue paying higher
contribution without any ceiling. It is submitted that the declaration
8 J-WP-123-13.odt
granted by the learned Single Judge that the bar of Section 12 of The
Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act would
not operate and that the notice of change was legal would relate back to
the date of issuance of the notice of change, dated 26/09/1998. The
learned counsel relied on the Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
reported in (2003) 4 SCC 147 and (1972) 3 SCC 684 to substantiate
his submission. It is submitted that a Court would generally adjudicate
upon the antecedent rights of the parties. It is submitted that when a
Court decides that a particular interpretation given to a particular
provision earlier was not legal, it declares the law as it stood from the
beginning, as per its decision. It is submitted that by the interim order
of the learned Single Judge, the provident fund authorities were
restrained from disbursing the excess contribution made by the
petitioner - bank to the employees and the said restrainment order
clearly shows that the Court desired that the amount paid by the
petitioner - bank towards its contribution, if found to be in excess
should be returned to the petitioner - bank in case it succeeds. It is
submitted that the reliance placed by the counsel for the employees on
the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in AIR 1960
Supreme Court 879 for denying the relief to the petitioner is ill-
founded as in the said decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was only
required to consider whether in the circumstances of that case, the
employer was guilty of altering the conditions of service of the
9 J-WP-123-13.odt
employees on the basis of the notice of change during the pendency of
the proceedings. It is submitted that the law laid down in the said
Judgment cannot be made applicable to the case in hand.
Shri Sundaram, the learned counsel for the provident
fund authorities denied the claim of the petitioner - bank. It is
submitted that no doubt, the authorities were restrained from
disbursing the excess amount paid by the petitioner - bank towards its
contribution but as 216 employees of the bank had retired during the
pendency of the proceedings before the learned Single Judge, their
provident fund accounts were settled and the excess contribution made
by those employees and the employer - bank was credited in the bank
accounts of the employees. It is submitted that in view of the Section 10
of The Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act,
any amount standing in the fund to the credit of the employees is not
capable of being attached and hence it would not be possible for the
provident fund authorities to recover the amount that was credited to
the bank accounts of the retired employees with the consent of the
bank. It is submitted that at the time of retirement of the employees a
Form is required to be signed by the employer and the employee and
submitted to the provident fund authorities and since the petitioner -
bank had signed the Forms in respect of the retired employees without
raising any objection against the disbursement of the excess amount,
the provident fund authorities had released the excess amount in
10 J-WP-123-13.odt
favour of the retired employees. It is stated that it is not possible for the
provident fund authorities to recover the amount that may have been
paid to the employees in excess under a bona fide belief that it was
liable to be paid. The learned counsel sought for the dismissal of the
writ petition.
Shri Dastane, the learned counsel for the employees
union opposed the prayer made in the writ petition, particularly on two
grounds. The learned counsel took this Court through the provisions of
Section 9-A and 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act to canvass that when a
notice of change is given by the employer, the conditions of service of
the employees - workmen would remain unchanged during the
pendency of the proceedings either before the Conciliation Officer or a
Court or Tribunal. It is submitted that immediately after the notice of
change was given by the petitioner - bank on 26/09/1998, the
employees union had raised a dispute and the Central Government had
referred the matter to the Tribunal. It is submitted that in view of the
provisions of Section 33 (1) (a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the
petitioner - bank could not have altered the conditions of service of its
employees to the prejudice of the employees, save with the express
permission in writing, of the authority before which the proceedings
were pending. It is submitted that it is nobody's case that during the
pendency of the proceedings before the Conciliation Officer or the
Tribunal, permission was granted in writing to the petitioner to alter the
11 J-WP-123-13.odt
condition of making a higher contribution towards provident fund that
is, above the ceiling prescribed by Clause 2 (f) of the Statutory Scheme.
It is submitted that if the condition of service could not have been
altered and the petitioner - bank could not have reduced the amount of
contribution by applying the ceiling prescribed by Clause 2 (f) of the
Statutory Scheme, the bank would not be entitled to recover what was
rightfully contributed for the benefit of the employees under Section 33
of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is submitted that Section 33 of the
Industrial Disputes Act injuncts the employer from altering the service
conditions and merely because the learned Single Judge had set aside
the award passed by the Tribunal and had granted the declaration as
claimed by the petitioner - bank, the said declaration could not have
had the effect of withdrawing the benefit that was granted in favour of
the employees in view of the provisions of Section 33 of the Act. It is
submitted that the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge on
10/02/2004 does not create any right in favour of the petitioner - bank.
It is submitted that the interim order dated 10/02/2004 favours the
employees and not the petitioner - bank as the prayer made by the
petitioner for grant of interim relief was rejected. It is submitted that
the petitioner would not be entitled to seek a direction against the
provident fund authorities to refund the excess amount paid by the
petitioner - bank towards the employers contribution as a specific
prayer in that regard was not made by the petitioner in the petition filed
12 J-WP-123-13.odt
before the learned Single Judge. It is submitted that a prayer seeking
the refund of the excess amount could have been made in the writ
petition presented before the learned Single Judge and since it was not
made, the petitioner would not be entitled to make the said prayer by
filing this writ petition in view of the principles of constructive res
judicata. It is submitted that by placing reliance on the Judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in (1985) 4 SCC 71 that the
provisions of a Welfare Legislation should be construed liberally. Also,
reliance is placed on the Judgments, reported in (2011) 3 SCC 408 and
(2005) 8 SCC 423 to substantiate the submission pertaining to the
applicability of the principles of constructive res judicata. Reliance is
placed on the Judgment, reported in (2005) 8 SCC 423 to canvass that
an interim order would cease to have effect after the final order is
passed by the Court and hence, the interim order passed by the learned
Single Judge dated 10/02/2004 restraining the provident fund
authorities from disbursing the amount of contribution of the employer
- bank, over and above the ceiling prescribed by Clause 2 (f) of the
Statutory Scheme to the employees would cease to have effect, no
sooner than the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition on
18/09/2008 without confirming the interim order.
On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it
appears that after the exemption from the provisions of The Employees'
Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act and the scheme was
13 J-WP-123-13.odt
granted to the petitioner - bank on 29/08/1981, the petitioner had
evolved the scheme in which there was no ceiling on the contribution
payable by the employees towards the provident fund, as prescribed by
Clause 2 (f) of the Statutory Scheme. Though the exemption granted to
the petitioner - bank was revoked by the provident fund authorities on
14/10/1991, the petitioner - bank continued to deduct the amount of
contribution of the employees from their salary, over and above the
statutory limit of 10 % till it decided to change the condition in regard
to the payment of contribution in excess of the ceiling prescribed by
Clause 2 (f) of the Statutory Scheme by giving a notice of change under
the provisions of Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act on
26/09/1998. The employees union raised a dispute before the
Conciliation Officer and the Central Government referred the matter to
the C.G.I.T. by the order dated 20/07/2001. During the pendency of the
proceedings before the Tribunal, the bank continued to deduct the
contribution over and above the ceiling prescribed by Clause 2 (f) of the
Statutory Scheme from the salary of its employees and contributed
equally, as per the scheme of the bank. The Tribunal answered the
reference against the petitioner - bank after holding that the action on
the part of the bank of intending to reduce the rate of contribution of
provident fund of its employees was not just. The Tribunal went on to
hold that the employees - workmen that had submitted their statement
of claim shall continue to draw the benefit of getting equal contribution
14 J-WP-123-13.odt
towards provident fund from its employer - bank. What was challenged
by the petitioner in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge
was the order of the Government making a reference of the dispute
dated 20/07/2001 to the CGIT, the award dated 25/10/2002 and the
communications of the provident fund authorities that had directed the
petitioner - bank to continue paying the contribution that was above
the ceiling limit. It would be necessary to reproduce prayer clause (1) in
the writ petition at this stage as the learned Single Judge had made the
rule absolute in terms of prayer clause (1) that reads thus ;-
"Prayer Clause (1) : Quash and set aside the order dated
20/07/2001 (Annexure No.7) passed by the respondent No.1 Union of
India, Award dated 25/10/2002 (Annexure No.10) passed by the
C.G.I.T., Nagpur, communication dated 13/05/1999 (Annexure No.11)
and 27/04/2001 (Annexure No.12) issued by the respondent No.3 and
4 respectively and it be declared that the liability of the petitioner to
make payment of Provident Fund is restricted to and is as per the
provisions of the Statutory Scheme only."
The learned Single Judge had not only quashed and set
aside the award of the Tribunal but had also set aside the order of the
Government making a reference of the dispute to the Tribunal, dated
20/07/2001 as also the communications of the provident fund
authorities rejecting the prayer of the petitioner - bank of paying its
contribution as per the ceiling prescribed by Clause 2 (f) of the
15 J-WP-123-13.odt
Statutory Scheme. The Judgment of the learned Single Judge dated
18/09/2008 was upheld by the Division Bench in the Letters Patent
Appeal and both the Judgments of this Court were upheld by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court while dismissing the Special Leave Petition filed
by the employees union. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the order
of the learned Single Judge that was affirmed by the Division Bench of
the High Court is just, fair, appropriate and in consonance with the
provisions of The Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous
Provisions Act.
In our view, immediately after the Hon'ble Supreme
Court dismissed the petition filed by the employees, it was necessary for
the provident fund authorities to refund the bank's contribution that
was over and above the ceiling prescribed by Clause 2 (f) of the
Statutory Scheme. Before the learned Single Judge, what was sought to
be challenged by the petitioner - bank was the order of the Central
Government making the reference as also the order of the Tribunal
answering the reference against the petitioner - bank. As soon as the
prayer made by the petitioner in prayer clause (1) of the writ petition
was allowed, the provident fund authorities were obliged to refund the
amount that was paid by the petitioner - bank in excess, towards its
contribution. No doubt, the provident fund authorities could have
waited till the order passed by the learned Single Judge attained finality
as it was further subjected to challenge. In the circumstances of the
16 J-WP-123-13.odt
case, it was not necessary for the petitioner - bank to have made a
specific prayer for a direction against the provident fund authorities to
refund the excess amount to the petitioner - bank as the said prayer
was implicit in the prayer made by the petitioner for quashing and
setting aside the award passed by the Tribunal, the orders of the
provident fund authorities and the order of the Government making the
order of reference, specially when the matter arose from the award
passed by the CGIT on a reference made by the Central Government.
Once it was held by the learned Single Judge that the notice of change
given by the petitioner - bank was valid, the bank was entitled to seek
the recovery of the excess amount of contribution paid by it. The
principles of constructive res judicata would not apply to this case as it
was not necessary for the petitioner - bank to specifically make a prayer
for refund of the amount, as no sooner than the prayer made in prayer
clause (1) of the petition was granted, the provident fund authorities
were liable to refund the contribution made by the petitioner - bank in
excess of the limit provided by Clause 2 (f) of the Statutory Scheme. It
cannot be said that in view of the provisions of Section 33 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, since the employer - bank was not permitted to
alter the conditions of service of the employees during the pendency of
the proceedings before the Tribunal, the petitioner - bank would not be
entitled to recover the amount paid by the petitioner - bank in excess of
the ceiling prescribed by Clause 2 (f) of the Statutory Scheme. After the
17 J-WP-123-13.odt
Courts have held that the notice of change given by the petitioner -
bank on 26/09/1998 was legal and valid, it cannot be said that merely
because the petitioner - bank continued to make the contribution in
excess of the ceiling prescribed by Clause 2 (f) of the Scheme, the said
amount cannot be refunded to the petitioner. It is rightly submitted on
behalf of the petitioner - bank that the Judgment, reported in AIR 1960
Supreme Court 879, on which reliance has been placed by the counsel
for the employees union cannot be made applicable to the facts of this
case. The question before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case
was whether the employer therein had contravened the provisions of
Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act and while answering the said
question, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the conditions of service
do not stand changed when the proposal is made or the notice is given
but when the change is actually effected. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
held in the circumstances of the that case that while deciding whether
an employer has contravened the provisions of Section 33 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, it would be necessary to ascertain the time,
when the change of which the notice under Section 9-A is given, is
actually effected. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held while considering
the question of contravention of the provisions of Section 33 of the Act
by the employer that the said provisions could be attracted only if at the
time of actual effecting of the change, the proceedings are pending
before the Tribunal.
18 J-WP-123-13.odt
The principle that the interim relief merges with the
final order and that it ceases to have effect after the final order is
rendered is well settled but the petitioner - bank has not claimed the
relief on the basis of the interim order. The petitioner - bank has sought
the relief on the basis of the final order passed by the learned Single
Judge, by which the award passed by the Tribunal was set aside. The
interim order is referred to in this case, particularly with a view to
substantiate the submission that the amount paid by the petitioner -
bank in excess of the prescribed limit in Clause 2 (f) of the Statutory
Scheme was required to be retained in the custody of the provident
fund authorities till the matter was finally decided. If the Court did not
intend that the excess amount should be returned to the petitioner -
bank on its success in the writ petition, there may not have been a
restrainment order against the provident fund authorities, not to
disburse the amount to the employees during the pendency of the writ
petition. We are surprised that despite the restrainment order of this
Court, dated 10/02/2004 in Writ Petition No.2751/2003, the provident
fund authorities have high-handedly credited the excess amount paid by
the petitioner - bank towards its contribution for 216 retired employees
of the bank, in their bank accounts after their retirement. We are not
inclined to accept the submission made on behalf of provident fund
authorities that the said amount was released in favour of the
employees with the consent of the petitioner - bank. In the additional
19 J-WP-123-13.odt
affidavit filed by on behalf of the petitioner - bank, it is pointed out by
supporting documents that it was conveyed to the provident fund
authorities by the petitioner - bank that while releasing the provident
fund to its employees, the effect of the interim order of the High Court
dated 10/02/2004 in Writ Petition No.2751/2003 should be noted. By
the communications that are annexed to the additional affidavit-in-reply
filed on behalf of the petitioner, it is pointed out that the provident fund
authorities were warned that action of releasing the provident fund to
the employees could be taken only in accordance with the interim order
of restrainment, dated 10/02/2004. Despite the said warning that is
conveyed by affixing a rubber stamp on the Forms in respect of the
retired employees, it appears that the provident fund authorities have
released, even the amount of the employers contribution that was in
excess of the ceiling prescribed by Clause 2 (f) of the Statutory Scheme.
If the provident fund authorities have not acted in consonance with the
orders passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 10/02/2004,
only the authorities are to be blamed. While holding that the provident
fund authorities would be liable to return the employers contribution
that was paid over and above the ceiling prescribed by Cause 2 (f) of
the Statutory Scheme, we are not inclined to accept the submission
made on behalf of the provident fund authorities that in view of the
provisions of Section 10 of The Employees' Provident Funds and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, they would not be entitled to attach the
20 J-WP-123-13.odt
amount standing to the credit of the employees in the fund. The
reference to the provisions of Section 10 of The Employees' Provident
Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act is not well founded. The
provisions of Section 10 of the Act would not be applicable in a case like
the one in hand. The Judgments, reported in (1972) 1 SCC 814 and
(1999) 6 SCC 82, (1985) 4 SCC 71, (2011) 3 SCC 408 and (2005) 8
SCC 423, and relied on by the learned counsel for the employees union
cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case. When the notice of
change given by the petitioner - bank is held to be valid and legal, there
is no question of construing the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act
and The Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act
liberally.
For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed.
The respondents - provident fund authorities are directed to refund the
provident fund contribution made by the petitioner - bank in excess of
the statutory limit in respect of its employees during the period from
01/11/1998 to 31/10/2008 to the petitioner - bank with statutory
interest @ 12 % per annum from the date of payment of the excess
contribution, till the date of realization of the amount. Since the
amount of Rs.22,00,00,000/- (Rs.Twenty Two Crore) that was
deposited by the provident fund authorities in this Court in terms of the
interim orders passed in this petition was withdrawn by the petitioner -
bank with the permission of this Court, we direct the petitioner - bank
21 J-WP-123-13.odt
to adjust the amount to which it is entitled in terms of this order, and
return the amount that may be in excess, to the provident fund
authorities. If any amount is payable by the provident fund authorities
to the petitioner - bank after deducting the sum of Rs.22,00,00,000/-,
the same may be paid by the authorities to the petitioner - bank within
one month.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no
order as to costs.
On the request made by the counsel for the employees
union, the part of the interim order dated 16 th December, 2013 that
pertains to the undertaking of the petitioner - bank to repay the
amount, within a period of seven days would continue for a period of
six weeks only.
JUDGE JUDGE
Choulwar
