Bombay High Court

Wardha Nagri Sahakari Adhikosh ... vs The Regional Provident Funds ... on 25 April, 2019

Bench: Manish Pitale

WPs-5154.16+16-Judgment 1/56

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO. 5154 OF 2016

PETITIONER :- Sanmitra Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd.
Akola, a registered Co-op. Society,
through its Chief Executive Officer, Mr.
Rammanohar Jamanlal Lohiya, Age 60
yrs., Ramdespeth, Akola, Tq. and Distt.
Akola.

...VERSUS...

RESPONDENTS :- 1. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner,
Sub-Regional Office, 15-B Raghuraj
Arced, Civil Lines, Akola, Tq. and Dist.
Akola.

2. Employees Provident Fund Appellate
Tribunal, 4th floor, Core 2, SCOPE Minar,
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi - 110092.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri R.L.Khapre, counsel for the Petitioner.
Shri H.N.Verma, counsel for the Respondents.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WRIT PETITION NO. 142 OF 2014

PETITIONER :- Shri Keshav Urban Credit Co-Op. Society
Ltd, Shegaon, Regd. No. 955/94, Office
Near Bus Stand, Shegaon, Distt-
Buldhana.

KHUNTE

::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2019 05:58:53 :::
WPs-5154.16+16-Judgment 2/56

...VERSUS...

RESPONDENT :- Assist. Provident Fund Commissioner,
Office Of Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner, Sub-Regional Office,
Akola.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri N.R.Saboo, counsel for the Petitioner.
Shri H.N.Verma, counsel for the Respondent.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WRIT PETITION NO. 333 OF 2011

PETITIONER :- M/s Baheti Automobiles, Near Shivaji
Park, Akola Through its Partner Shri
Kamalkishore Fulchand Baheti.

...VERSUS...

RESPONDENTS :- 1. Employees" Provident Fund Appellate
Tribunal, New Delhi.

2. Assistant Provident Fund Committee,
S.R.O., Nagpur, 132-A, Ridge Road,
Raghuji Nagar, Nagpur - 440 009.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri N.R.Saboo, counsel for the Petitioner.
Shri H.N.Verma, counsel for the Respondents.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WRIT PETITION NO. 1027 OF 2011

PETITIONER :- The Amravati Zilla Mahila Sahakari
Bank Limited, The Co-operative Bank,
registered under the Maharashtra Co-

KHUNTE

::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2019 05:58:53 :::
WPs-5154.16+16-Judgment 3/56

operative Societies Act, 1960, having its
registered office at Jawahar Road,
Amravati, through its Chief Executive
Officer, Shri Subhash S/o Shamrao
Mahure.

...VERSUS...

RESPONDENTS :- 1. The Employees Provident Fund Appellate
Tribunal, Scope Minar Core-II, 4th Floor,
Laxmi Nagar District Center, Laxmi
Nagar, New Delhi - 110092.

2. The Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner, Sub Region Office, Sant
Tukadoji Square, Raghuji Nagar, Nagpur.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri A.S.Kilor, counsel for the Petitioner.
Shri H.N.Verma, counsel for the Respondents.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WRIT PETITION NO. 1106 OF 2009

PETITIONER :- Wardha Nagri Sahakari Adhikosh (Bank)
Ltd., Office at Madhav Bhavan, Dr. J.C.
Kumarappa Marg, Wardha, Through its
Chief Executive Officer.

...VERSUS...

RESPONDENT :- The Regional Provident Funds
Commissioner Office of Employees
Provident Funds Organization, SRO 132
A Ringe Road, Tukdoji Maharaj Square,
Nagpur.

KHUNTE

::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2019 05:58:53 :::
WPs-5154.16+16-Judgment 4/56

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri S.S.Ghate, counsel for the Petitioner.
Shri R.S.Sundaram, counsel for the Respondent.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WRIT PETITION NO. 1125 OF 2014

PETITIONER :- The Akola Merchant Co-operative Bank
Ltd., Akola, through its Manager Mr.Dilip
Babarao, Gohad, Aged about 37 years,
occ. - Service, Nisarg Plaza, Damle
Chowk, Hanuman Basti, Akola, Tq. and
Distt. Akola.

...VERSUS...

RESPONDENTS :- 1. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner,
Sub-Regional Office, 15-B Raghuraj
Arced, Civil Lines, Akola, Tq. and Dist.
Akola.

2. Employees Provident Fund Appellate
Tribunal, 4th Floor, Core 2, SCOPE Minar,
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi - 110092.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri R.L.Khapre, counsel for the Petitioner.
Shri R.S.Sundaram, counsel for the Respondents.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WRIT PETITION NO. 3507 OF 2013

PETITIONER :- 1. The Central Board of Trustees, Employees
Provident Fund , Having Office at
Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama

KHUNTE

::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2019 05:58:53 :::
WPs-5154.16+16-Judgment 5/56

place, New Delhi-110066, Through the
Assistant Provident Funds Commissioner,
Employees Provident Fund Organization.

2. The Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner, 132-A, Ridge Road,
Tukdoji Chowk, Raghuji Nagar, Nagpur.

...VERSUS...

RESPONDENT :- The Agrasen Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd.,
Akola, A Registered Co-op. Society duly
registered under the provisions of the
Maharashtra Co-op. Societies Act,
through its Manager, Gandhi Road,
Akola, Tah. & Dist. Akola (M.S.).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri H.N.Verma, counsel for the Petitioners.
Shri R.L.Khapre, counsel for the Respondent.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WRIT PETITION NO. 3654 OF 2010

PETITIONERS :- 1. The Central Board of Trustee through
The Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner, Sub Regional Office,
Raghuraj Arcade, Civil Lines, Akola.

Deleted as per order 2. The Enforcement Officer, Employees
dtd.20.11.2014 Provident Fund, Mal Tekdi Road,
Amravati (M.S.).

...VERSUS...

KHUNTE

::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2019 05:58:53 :::
WPs-5154.16+16-Judgment 6/56

RESPONDENT :- M/s Abhinandan Urban Co-operative
Bank Ltd., Prabhat Chowk, Amravati,
Taluka & Dist. Amravati.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri H.N.Verma, counsel for the Petitioner.
Shri A.P.Wachasunder, counsel for the Respondent.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WRIT PETITION NO. 3882 OF 2014

PETITIONERS :- 1. Anuradha Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd.,
having its head office at Shivaji Chowk,
Chikhli, District Buldhana - 443 201.
Registration No. BLD/BNK/01/03/98-99,
through the Chief Executive Officer.

2. Pandnarinath Anandrao Tekade, Chief
Executive Officer, Anuradha Urban
Cooperative Bank Ltd., Shivaji Chowk,
Chikhli, District Buldhana - 443 201.

...VERSUS...

RESPONDENT :- Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner,
Sub-Regional Office, Akola, Taluka and
District Akola.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri M.V.Samarth, counsel for the Petitioners.
Shri H.N.Verma, counsel for the Respondent.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

KHUNTE

::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2019 05:58:53 :::
WPs-5154.16+16-Judgment 7/56

WRIT PETITION NO. 4926 OF 2003

PETITIONER :- The Anjangaon - Surji Nagari Sahakari
Bank Limited, A Co-operative Bank
registered under the provisions of the
Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act
1960, having its Registered Office at
Shaniwarpeth Anjangaon - Surji, District
Amravati, through its Chief Executive
Officer Shri Narendra Tiwari.

...VERSUS...

RESPONDENTS :- 1. The Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner, Sub-Regional Office, 132-
A Ridge Road, Sant Tukdoji Square,
Raghuji Nagar, Nagpur 440009.

2. The Enforcement Officer, Employees
Provident Fund, Maltekdi Road, Krushi
Lodge, District Amravati.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri M.M.Agnihotri, counsel for the Petitioner.
Shri R.S.Sundaram, counsel for the Respondents.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WRIT PETITION NO. 5032 OF 2003

PETITIONER :- The Amravati Merchants' Co-operative
Bank Limited, A Cooperative Bank
registered under the provisions of the
Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act
1960, having its Registered Office at
Merchants' Chamber, Ambapeth, Badnera

KHUNTE

::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2019 05:58:53 :::
WPs-5154.16+16-Judgment 8/56

Road, District Amravati-444 601, through
its Chief Executive Officer Shri
Narayanrao S/o Shankarrao Vidhale.

...VERSUS...

RESPONDENTS :- 1. The Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner, Sub-Regional Office, 132-
A Ridge Road, Sant Tukdoji Square,
Raghuji Nagar, Nagpur 440009.

2. The Enforcement Officer, Employees
Provident Fund, Maltekdi Road, Krushi
Lodge, District Amravati.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri M.M.Agnihotri, counsel for Petitioner.
Shri R.S.Sundaram, counsel for Respondents.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WRIT PETITION NO. 5226 OF 2009

PETITIONER :- The Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner, Office of the Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner, 132-A,
Ridge Road, Tukdoji Maharaj Square,
Raghuji Nagar, Nagpur 440009.

...VERSUS...

RESPONDENT :- Jagruti Bigar Shetaki Pat Purwatha
Sahakari Sanstha Ltd., Mandikota, Tahsil
Tiroda, District Gondia.

KHUNTE

::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2019 05:58:53 :::
WPs-5154.16+16-Judgment 9/56

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri R.S.Sundaram, counsel for the Petitioner.
Shri S.R.Bhongade, counsel for the Respondent.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WRIT PETITION NO. 5566 OF 2010

PETITIONERS :- 1. The Central Board of Trustee through
The Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner, 132-A, Ridge Road,
Tukdoji Chowk, Raghuji Nagar, Nagpur.

Deleted as per order 2. The Enforcement Officer, Employees
dtd.20.11.2014 Provident Fund, Mal Tekdi Road,
Amravati (M.S.).

...VERSUS...

RESPONDENT :- The Vasant Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanstha
Maryadit, Cotton Market Yard, Akot,
through its Manager Dinesh Purushottam
Rathi, R/o Akot, Tq. Akot, Dist. Akola.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri H.N.Verma, counsel for the Petitioner.
Shri A.J.Thakkar, counsel for the Respondent.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WRIT PETITION NO. 5576 OF 2015

PETITIONERS :- 1. Bharti Maind Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanstha,
Jagdamba Apartment, Moti Nagar, Pusad,
District Yavatmal, through its President
Shri Apparao Maind, aged 64 years, r/o
Tilak Ward, Pusad, District Yavatmal.

KHUNTE

::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2019 05:58:53 :::
WPs-5154.16+16-Judgment 10/56

2. Gajanan Ramkrishna Nakade, aged 39
yrs, occ. Branch Manager, r/o Govind
Nagar, Pusad, District Yavatmal.

...VERSUS...

RESPONDENTS :- 1. Central Board of Trustees, a Board
Corporate constituted under Employees
Provident Fund and Miscellaneous
Provisions Act, 1952, having its
registered office at Bhavishya Nidhi
Bhavan, Bikaji Cama Palace, New Delhi
110 066, through Regional Provident
Fund Commissioner, Sub Regional
Office, 15-B, Raghuraj Aircad, Civil
Lines, Akola.

2. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner,
O/o Employees Provident Fund
Organisation, sub-regional office, 15-B,
Raghuraj Aircad, Civil Lines, Akola.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri R.G.Kavimandam, counsel for the Petitioners.
Shri R.S.Sundaram, counsel for the Respondents.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WRIT PETITION NO. 5667 OF 2009

PETITIONER :- Shattarka Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanstha,
Maryadit Nagpur 15 Through its Chief
Manager.

...VERSUS...

KHUNTE

::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2019 05:58:53 :::
WPs-5154.16+16-Judgment 11/56

RESPONDENT :- Assistant Provident Funds Commissioner,
Office of Employees Provident Fund
Organisation, SRO 132A, Ridge Road
Tukdoji Maharaj Chowk, Raghuji Nagar,
Nagpur.

WRIT PETITION NO. 6149 OF 2011

PETITIONER :- The Amravati Zilla Mahila Sahakari Bank
Limited, The cooperative Bank, registered
under the Maharashtra Cooperative
Societies Act, 1960, having its registered
office at Jawahar Road, Amravati,
through its Chief Executive Officer, Shri
Subhash S/o Shamrao Mahure.

...VERSUS...

RESPONDENT :- Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner,
Sub Region Office, 15B, Raghuraj
Arkade, Civil Lines, Akola 444 001.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri A.S.Kilor, counsel for the Petitioner.
Shri H.N.Verma, counsel for the Respondent.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WRIT PETITION NO. 6191 OF 2005

PETITIONER :- Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner,
Office of the Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner, 132-A, Ridge Road,
Tukdoji Square, Raghujinagar, Nagpur.

KHUNTE

::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2019 05:58:53 :::
WPs-5154.16+16-Judgment 12/56

...VERSUS...

RESPONDENT :- Bhartiya Sindhu Sahakari Pat Sanstha
Maryadit, Akola, through its Chief
Manager, Mr Vimlesh Syamsunder
Pande, aged about 35 years, Occupation
Service, R/o Alankar Market, Tilak Road,
Akola.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri R.S.Sundaram, counsel for the Petitioner.
Shri R.L.Khapre, counsel for the Respondent.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J.

DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT: 28.02.2019.
DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT: 25.04.2019.

JUDGMENT

Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. These writ

petitions are heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel

for the parties.




 KHUNTE





  WPs-5154.16+16-Judgment                                                       13/56

3. This group of writ petitions, filed by the banks

(employer) as also by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

challenge orders passed by the Employees Provident Fund

Appellate Tribunal as also the Assistant Provident Fund

Commissioner, pertaining to the question as to whether pigmy

agents/collection agents appointed by the banks for collection of

small deposit amounts could be covered under the provisions of

the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act,

1952 (hereinafter referred to as "Act of 1952") and whether the

Provident Fund Commissioner could enquire into the applicability

of the Act of 1952 on such banks and if so, the liability of the

banks under the provisions of the Act of 1952.

4. Since common questions arise in the present petitions,

the said questions are being decided first and then individual writ

petitions will be dealt with.

5. On behalf of the banks, learned counsel led by Mr.R.L.

Khapre contended that in view of the award of the Industrial

Tribunal at Hyderabad concerning specific question referred to the

KHUNTE

WPs-5154.16+16-Judgment 14/56

said Tribunal by the Central Government, which stood modified by

the judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Indian

Banks Association v. The Workmen of Syndicate Bank and others,

reported in 1988 (1) LLJ 233 and such modified award stood

confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment in the

case of Indian Bank Association v. Workmen of Syndicate Bank,

reported in (2001) 3 SCC 36, there was no scope for the

Provident Fund Commissioner to argue that the pigmy agents/

collection agents of the banks were covered under the provisions

of the Act of 1952. It was contended that the said service condition

of entitlement towards provident fund upon being covered under

the provisions of the Act of 1952 stood rejected by the aforesaid

modified award, confirmed up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and

that such an award had binding force under section 18(3)(d) of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "Act of

1947"), thereby showing that the Act of 1952 was not applicable

and the contentions raised on behalf of the banks deserved to be

allowed. It was specifically contended that the Hon'ble Supreme

Court categorically held in the case of Punjab National Bank and

KHUNTE

WPs-5154.16+16-Judgment 15/56

Ors. v. Manjeet Singh and Anr., reported in (2006) 8 SCC 647 that

once such an award on a reference made by the Central

Government pertaining to an establishment had attained finality,

it was binding on all parties and the same could not be reopened.

6. On this basis, it was contended that the reliance

placed on the judgments of Division Bench of this Court in the

case of Pachora Peoples' Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. Employees Provident

Fund Organization, reported in 2014 (4) Mh.L.J. 436 and 2017

(2) Mh.L.J. 946 in writ petition and review petition as also the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nashik

Merchant Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. The Regional Provident Fund

Commissioner II, (Civil Appeal No.15680 of 2017, decided on

05/10/2017) was misplaced because the said contention

pertaining to binding nature of the award confirmed up to the

Hon'ble Supreme Court, was not brought to the notice of the

Division Bench of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

On this basis, it was contended that the judgments and orders

passed in the case of Pachora Peoples' Co-op. Bank Ltd. v.



 KHUNTE





  WPs-5154.16+16-Judgment                                                16/56

Employees Provident Fund Organization and Nashik Merchant

Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

II (supra) were per incuriam and not binding on this Court.

Alternatively, it was submitted that this Court ought to refer the

said question to Full Bench of this Court for resolution.

7. In this regard, reliance was placed by the learned

counsel appearing for the banks on various judgments pertaining

to the concept of ratio decidendi of a judgment, per incuriam

judgments and the fact that even a learned Single Judge of this

Court could directly refer a matter to the Full Bench of this Court

for consideration on certain issues.

8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the

Provident Fund Commissioner led by Mr. R.S.Sundaram and Mr.

H.N.Verma, submitted that there was no substance in the

contention raised on behalf of the banks. It was submitted that

the judgments of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of

Pachora Peoples' Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. Employees Provident Fund

KHUNTE

WPs-5154.16+16-Judgment 17/56

Organization (supra) had been specifically confirmed by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nashik Merchant Cooperative

Bank Ltd. v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner II (supra)

and that the said judgments of this Court had remanded similar

matters concerning identical questions to the Authorities under the

Act of 1952 for consideration and further that in the review

judgment of this Court in the case of Pachora Peoples' Co-op.Bank

Ltd. v. Employees Provident Fund Organization (supra) specific

parameters for assessment of questions were laid down by this

Court for the guidance of the Authorities. It was submitted that in

such a situation, the banks as well as the authorities under the Act

of 1952 had ample opportunity to place on record material for the

Authorities to answer all questions, including the question of

applicability of the Act to the banks, upon remand of the cases. It

was submitted that the said judgments of the Division Bench of

this Court, as confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, were

clearly applicable to the present cases and that the Provident Fund

Commissioner, who was the petitioner in some petitions and the

respondent in others before this Court, conceded to the

KHUNTE

WPs-5154.16+16-Judgment 18/56

requirement of all the matters being remanded to the Provident

Fund Appellate Tribunal to be decided afresh on the parameters

laid down in the review judgment of the Division Bench of this

Court in the case of Pachora Peoples' Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. Employees

Provident Fund Organization (supra).

9. On the contention raised on behalf of the banks that

the pigmy agents/collections agents were not covered under the

provisions of the Act of 1952 on the basis of binding force of the

award under the provisions of the Act of 1947, confirmed up to

the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was submitted that the said

contention was of no avail, because upon remand, the question of

applicability of the Act of 1952 would certainly be gone into by the

Tribunal and the power and authority of the concerned

officers/authorities under the provisions of the Act of 1952 could

not be taken away by the said interpretation put forth on behalf of

the banks. On the question of per incuriam or the necessity to

refer the matters to Full Bench of this Court, it was submitted that

the same was not necessary, in view of the fact that similar cases

KHUNTE

WPs-5154.16+16-Judgment 19/56

had been already remanded to the Authorities by a Division Bench

of this Court, as confirmed up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and

there was no conflict or dispute regarding any question of law that

arose in the present matter, warranting reference of the present

cases to a Full Bench for consideration and resolution. The

learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Director of Settlements, A.P.and

others v. M. R. Apparao and another, reported in (2002) 4 SCC

638 to contend that when the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

of Nashik Merchant Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. The Regional

Provident Fund Commissioner II (supra) specifically used the words

"We are of the view that the entitlement of the employees to be

covered by the provisions of the Act of 1952 needs to be decided in

the light of the aforesaid laid down parameters.", it became clear

that the order of remand passed in the judgments in the writ

petition and review in the case of Pachora Peoples' Co-op. Bank Ltd.

v. Employees Provident Fund Organization (supra) had received the

stamp of approval of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and that in the

present cases also an order of remand was required to be passed,

KHUNTE

WPs-5154.16+16-Judgment 20/56

so that the contentions of the rival parties could be decided on the

basis of the specific parameters laid down in the review judgment

of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pachora Peoples'

Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. Employees Provident Fund Organization (supra).

10. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the

material placed on record. The question as to whether pigmy

agents/collection agents of banks were entitled for reliefs as

workmen, was subject matter of the aforesaid reference made by

the Central Government to the Industrial Tribunal at Hyderabad.

The question referred to the Tribunal by the Central Government

for adjudication under the provisions of the Act of 1947, was as

follows :-

"Whether the demands of the Commission Agents or as the case may be Deposit Collectors Employed in the Banks listed in the Annexure that they are entitled to pay scales, allowances and other service conditions available to regular clerical employees of those banks is justified? If not, to what relief are the workmen concerned entitled and from which date?"

11. The Tribunal, answered the reference by holding that

such collection agents below the age of 45 years as on

KHUNTE

WPs-5154.16+16-Judgment 21/56

03/10/1980 shall be considered for regular absorption for the post

of clerks and cashier in the banks and they could be taken as legal

employees if they passed qualifying examination to be conducted

by the banks and it was further held that those collection agents,

who were above the age of 45 years on the said date and were

unwilling to be absorbed in the service of the banks, they shall be

paid fall back wages of Rs.750/- per month and further that they

would be entitled to certain incentive remuneration, in addition to

payment of gratuity of 15 days commission for each year of service

rendered. In the process of reaching to the said conclusions, the

Tribunal categorically found that the collection agents were

employees of the bank and there was a relationship of master and

servant or employer and employee. It was also stated by the

Tribunal that the collection agents cannot claim any provident

fund or pension but they could pray for gratuity as mentioned

above.

12. The said award of the Tribunal was challenged before

the Andhra Pradesh High Court and by the judgment and order

KHUNTE

WPs-5154.16+16-Judgment 22/56

dated 28/03/1997 passed by the High Court in the case of Indian

Banks Association v. The Workmen of Syndicate Bank and others

(supra), the High Court held that the finding of the Tribunal

regarding collection agents being workmen of the respective banks

was correct, but the direction for absorption of the collection

agents in the service of the banks, who were below the age of 45

years was not sustainable. The High Court did uphold the other

direction of the Tribunal pertaining to fall back wages, conveyance

allowance, incentive remuneration and gratuity.

13. The said award was in turn challenged before the

Hon'ble Supreme Court and it was decided in the said judgment in

the case of Indian Banks Association v. The Workmen of Syndicate

Bank and others (supra), wherein the award as modified by the

High Court was upheld and hence, the finding that the collection

agents were indeed workmen, attained finality.

14. It is the case of the learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the banks before this Court that the facts regarding the

details of the award passed by the Tribunal as modified and

KHUNTE

WPs-5154.16+16-Judgment 23/56

confirmed by the High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court were

not brought to the notice of the Division Bench of this Court when

the judgments were rendered in the case of Pachora Peoples' Co-op.

Bank Ltd. v. Employees Provident Fund Organization (supra) in the

writ petition and review petition. On this basis, it was contended

that even if the judgments in the case of Pachora Peoples' Co-op.

Bank Ltd. v. Employees Provident Fund Organization (supra) were

confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nashik

Merchant Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. The Regional Provident Fund

Commissioner II (supra), such judgments were on a concession

given by the counsel agreeing to remand of the matters before the

Authorities under the Act of 1952 and that being in ignorance of

the said position of law regarding binding effect of award under

section 18(3)(d) of the Act of 1947, the judgments in the case of

Pachora Peoples' Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. Employees Provident Fund

Organization (supra) were per incuriam and not binding on this

Court. As noted above, alternatively, it was submitted that this

aspect was required to be referred to a Full Bench of this Court.




 KHUNTE





  WPs-5154.16+16-Judgment                                                24/56

15. In order to consider the said contentions raised on

behalf of the banks, it would be necessary to first refer to the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab

National Bank and Ors. v. Manjeet Singh and Anr. (supra), on

which much reliance has been placed on behalf of the banks on

the aspect of binding force of the said award of the Tribunal on

reference made by the Central Government, as modified by the

High Court and upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

of Indian Banks Association v. The Workmen of Syndicate Bank and

others (supra). A perusal of the said judgment, shows that the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab National Bank and

Ors. v. Manjeet Singh and Anr. (supra) in paragraph 17, has held

as follows :-

"17. In an industrial dispute referred to by the Central Government which has an all-India implication, individual workmen cannot be made party to a reference. All of them are not expected to be heard. The unions representing them were impleaded as parties. They were heard. Not only were the said unions heard before the High Court, as noticed hereinbefore from a part of the judgment of the High Court, they had preferred appeals before this Court, Their contentions had been noticed by this Court. As the award was made in presence of

KHUNTE

WPs-5154.16+16-Judgment 25/56

the unions, in our opinion, the contention of respondents that the award was not binding on them cannot be accepted. The principles of natural justice were also not required to be complied with as the same would have been an empty formality. The court will not insist on compliance of the principles of natural justice in view of the binding nature of the award. Their application would be limited to a situation where the factual position or legal implication arising thereunder is disputed and not where it is not in dispute or cannot be disputed. If only one conclusion is possible, a writ would not issue only because there was a violation of the principles of natural justice."

16. The emphasis in the said judgment was on the fact

that there was no necessity to issue separate notice to employees

of banks and establishments, who stood covered under the

aforesaid reference made by the Central Government before the

Tribunal at Hyderabad. In the context of the argument raised on

behalf of the employees therein that they were entitled to issuance

of separate notice and adherence to principles of natural justice

when the bank intended to take steps as per the modified award, it

was held that under section 18(3)(d) of the Act of 1947, award

pronounced on a reference made by the Central Government was

binding on all parties, including workmen in such establishments

KHUNTE

WPs-5154.16+16-Judgment 26/56

to whom the award pertained. In fact, the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in earlier judgments in the case of National Engineering India Ltd.

v. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2000) 1 SCC 371 and Kapra

Mazdoor Ekta Union v. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills

Ltd.and another, reported in (2005) 13 SCC 777 had reiterated

the binding nature of the award under section 18(3)(d) of the Act

of 1947 on the basis that for maintenance of industrial peace, such

awards are required to be held as binding on all the employees

and establishments.

17. But, a perusal of para 17 of the judgment in the case

of Punjab National Bank and Ors. v. Manjeet Singh and Anr.(supra)

quoted above, shows that the Hon'ble Supreme Court while

reiterating binding nature of the award under the aforesaid

provisions, has observed that the principles of natural justice

would still apply to a situation where the factual position or legal

implication arising is disputed and not where it is not in dispute or

cannot be disputed. It is further held that if only one conclusion

was possible, a writ would not issue only because there was a

KHUNTE

WPs-5154.16+16-Judgment 27/56

violation of principles of natural justice. These observations in the

very same judgment are relevant for the present case. This is

because the present case concerns notices issued by Authorities

under the provisions of the Act of 1952 regarding applicability of

the provisions of the said Act and hence, contributions liable to be

paid by the banks as well as the collection agents, in the respective

facts of the individual cases. This necessarily encompasses the

question of power of the Authorities under the provisions of the

Act of 1952 to take steps as are necessary to fulfill the object of the

Act of 1952.

18. In this context, the nature of observations made by

the Industrial Tribunal at Hyderabad shows that the main question

considered by the Tribunal under the provisions of the Act of 1947

was, as to whether collection agents of banks were workmen as

defined under the Act of 1947 and whether there was relationship

of employer and employee between the banks and the collection

agents. This is evident from paragraph 43 of the award of the

Industrial Tribunal at Hyderabad. The entire discussion in the

KHUNTE

WPs-5154.16+16-Judgment 28/56

award is centered around the aforesaid question specified in

paragraph 43 of the award and it is on the basis of conclusions

rendered on the said question that the final directions and findings

are given in paragraph 69 of the award, details of which have been

already noted above. There is an observation in paragraph 68 of

the award that according to the member of the Industrial Tribunal,

it was felt that the collection agents could not claim provident

fund or pension, but the positive findings rendered in paragraph

69 pertained only to the question as to whether the collection

agents could be said to be workmen and employees of the banks.

The question, therefore, is whether the observation made in

paragraph 68 of the award, in the absence of any analysis would

successfully and permanently restrain the Authorities under the

Act of 1952 to even enter into the question as to whether the said

Act was applicable to the collection agents, who were found to be

workmen and employees of the banks.

19. In this context, section 7-A of the Act of 1952 becomes

significant, the relevant portion of which reads as follows:-



 KHUNTE





  WPs-5154.16+16-Judgment                                                29/56


        "[7-A. Determination of moneys due from

employers. - [(1) The Central Provident Fund Commissioner, any Additional Central Provident Fund Commissioner, any Deputy Provident Fund Commissioner, any Regional Provident Fund Commissioner or any Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, may, by order, -

(a) in a case where a dispute arises regarding the applicability of this Act to an establishment, decide such dispute; and

(b) determine the amount due from any employer under any provisions of this Act, the Scheme or the [Pension] Scheme or the Insurance Scheme, as the case may be, and for any of the aforesaid purposes may conduct such inquiry as he may deem necessary.]"

20. The above quoted portion shows that even in a case

where dispute arises regarding the applicability of the Act of 1952

to an establishment, such a dispute also has to be decided by the

Provident Fund Commissioner. This shows that power and

jurisdiction of the Provident Fund Commissioner under section 7-A

(1)(a) of the Act of 1952 encompasses the fundamental question

as to whether the Act of 1952 can even be applied to a particular

establishment. This Court is of the opinion that the observation

made in paragraph 68 of the award passed by the Industrial

Tribunal at Hyderabad in a reference made by the Central

KHUNTE

WPs-5154.16+16-Judgment 30/56

Government under the provisions of the Act of 1947, cannot take

away the aforesaid power of the Provident Fund Commissioner

under section 7-A(1)(a) of the Act of 1952 to decide as to whether

the provisions of the Act of 1952 would apply to the banks/

establishments in the present cases. If such an interpretation was

permitted, the very object of the Act of 1952 would be frustrated.

It is important that the banks in the present case are seeking to

stall an enquiry under the provisions of the Act of 1952 at the

threshold by relying upon the said judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court regarding binding nature of the award under

section 18(3)(d) of the Act of 1947, but the same cannot be

permitted.

21. In this context, the judgments of the Division Bench of

this Court in the case of Pachora Peoples' Co-op. Bank Ltd. v.

Employees Provident Fund Organization (supra) assume

significance, because a perusal of the specific parameters laid

down by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in

review shows that the Authorities under the Act of 1952 have been

KHUNTE

WPs-5154.16+16-Judgment 31/56

directed to make enquiry based on material including appointment

orders/contract letters/agreement between the banks and the

collection agents, as also to enquire as to whether the banks have

been paying wages disguised as commission to the collection

agents. Thus, the orders of remand passed by the Division Bench

of this Court do not lead to the conclusion that the banks have

been held to be liable or covered under the provisions of the Act of

1952, but detailed enquiry has been directed to be conducted by

the Provident Fund Authorities under the Act of 1952 to ascertain

whether the banks could be covered under the provisions of the

Act of 1952. At this stage, it would be relevant to reproduce the

parameters specified by the Division Bench of this Court in the

review judgment in the case of Pachora Peoples' Co-op. Bank Ltd. v.

Employees Provident Fund Organization (supra).

"32 We are, therefore, of the view that the following factors must be considered by the EPF Authorities in such cases :-

(a) The EPF Authorities should collect necessary documents by inspection of records of the Establishment/ Industry.

KHUNTE

WPs-5154.16+16-Judgment 32/56

(b) A direction to the Management to produce the documents as may be found necessary, should be issued whenever the EPF Authorities realize that the Management is holding back certain documents.

(c) The appointment orders/ contract letters or agreements in between the Banks and the pigmy agents/ deposit collectors should be made available for scrutiny and should be taken into consideration.

(d) Based on the above documents, the EPF Authorities must adjudicate on the following aspects:-

(i) Whether, the contracts/ appointment orders have a semblance of employer-employee relationship?

(ii) Whether, there is supervision, control and direction of the Bank over such agents?

(iii) Whether, these agents are under an obligation to work only for a particular Bank or it's Branches?

(iv) Whether, these agents are permitted to work elsewhere or undertake any other business, job, profession or calling?

(v) Whether, such agents are primarily dependent upon the work of collecting deposits for a particular Establishment?



 KHUNTE





  WPs-5154.16+16-Judgment                                                  33/56

(e) Interrogate the pigmy depositors to elucidate information about their exact nature of duties.

(f) Based on the documents and an analysis upon considering the above mentioned factors, the APFC will have to arrive at a conclusion supported by reasons that such pigmy agents can be termed as "workmen" and share employer- employee relationship with the Bank and are being paid wages disguised as commission. The said commission amount would then be termed as basic wages under Section 2(b) of the EPF Act."

22. In this backdrop, it becomes clear that there is no

substance in the contention raised on behalf of the banks that due

to binding nature of award of the Industrial Tribunal at

Hyderabad, as modified by the High Court and confirmed by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court, under section 18(3)(d) of the Act of

1947, even the initiation of enquiry based on the said parameters

laid down by the Division Bench of this Court cannot be

undertaken.

23. It is also relevant that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the case of Nashik Merchant Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. The Regional

KHUNTE

WPs-5154.16+16-Judgment 34/56

Provident Fund Commissioner II (supra) upheld the said parameters

laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the said review

orders by holding as follows:-

"3. The order of the High Court taking the aforesaid view seems to be primarily based on an earlier decision of the High Court dated 7 th February, 2014 in the case of The Pachora Peoples' Co-op. Bank Ltd. vs. The Employees Provident Fund Organization (Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India) [rendered in Writ Petition No.5086 of 2011 (Aurangabad Bench)]. It has been brought to the notice of the Court by the learned counsels for the appellants that the decision in The Pachora Peoples' Co-op. Bank Ltd. (supra) was subjected to a review before the High Court. Though the review petition was dismissed, a view was taken by the High Court that as hundreds of such disputes/cases are pending before the EPF Authorities and the High Court, certain parameters should be laid down by the High Court to govern the exercise of power in this regard by the EPF authorities under the Act of 1952. The High Court on a consideration of the matter deemed it proper to lay down the following parameters:

"(a) The EPF authorities should collect necessary documents by inspection of records of the Establishment/Industry.

(b) A direction to the Management to produce the documents as may be found necessary should be issued whenever the EPF authorities realize that

KHUNTE

WPs-5154.16+16-Judgment 35/56

the Management is holding back certain documents.

(c) The appointment orders/contract letters or agreements in between the Banks and the pigmy agents/deposit collectors should be made available for scrutiny and should be taken into consideration.

(d) Based on the above documents, the EPF authorities must adjudicate on the following aspects:

(i) Whether, the contracts/appointment orders have a semblance of employer-employee relationship?

(ii) Whether,there is supervision, control and direction of the Bank over such agents?

(iii) Whether, these agents are under an obligation to work only for a particular Bank or it's Branches?

(iv) Whether, these agents are permitted to work elsewhere or undertake any other business, job, profession or calling?

(v) Whether, such agents are primarily dependent upon the work of collecting deposits for a particular Establishment?

(e) Interrogate the Pigmy depositors to elucidate information about their exact nature of

KHUNTE

WPs-5154.16+16-Judgment 36/56

duties.

(f) Based on the documents and an analysis upon considering the above mentioned factors, the APFC will have to arrive at a conclusion supported by reasons that such pigmy agents can be termed as "workmen" and share employer-employee relationship with the Bank and are being paid wages disguised as commission. The said commission amount would then be termed as basic wages under section 2(b) of the EPF Act."

4. As in the present case, the judgment of the High Court impugned in these appeals does not indicate consideration of any of the aforesaid parameters and the High Court itself felt that the matter needs to be dealt with by reference to specific parameters noticed above, we are of the view that the entitlement of the employees to be covered by the provisions of the Act of 1952 needs to be tested in the light of the aforesaid laid down parameters. We, therefore, are of the view that in the facts of the present case it would be proper to set aside the order of the High Court and remand the matters for a de novo consideration by the EPF Authorities in the light of the parameters laid down by the High Court in its order of review dated 11th January, 2017 in The Pachora Peoples' Co-op. Bank Ltd. (supra), as extracted herein above."

24. In this context, the learned counsel appearing for the

Provident Fund Commissioner are justified in relying upon the

KHUNTE

WPs-5154.16+16-Judgment 37/56

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Director of

Settlements, A.P. v. M.R.Apparao (supra), wherein it has been held

that when the Hon'ble Supreme Court uses words to the effect

"We are also of the view", it amounts to the Hon'ble Supreme

Court approving the view taken by the High Court in a particular

case. The above quoted portion of the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Nashik Merchant Cooperative Bank

Ltd. v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner II (supra) shows

that it has been categorically stated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

that "We are of the view that the entitlement of the employees

to be covered by the provisions of the Act of 1952 needs to be

decided in the light of the aforesaid laid down parameters."

Thus, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

of Director of Settlements, A.P. v. M.R.Apparao (supra) applies

squarely to the present case and the learned counsel appearing for

the banks were not justified in contending that the said directions

and observations given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

of Nashik Merchant Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. The Regional Provident

Fund Commissioner II (supra) were given on a concession of the

KHUNTE

WPs-5154.16+16-Judgment 38/56

counsel appearing for the banks in those cases. This Court is of

the opinion that the judgments of the Division Bench of this Court

in Pachora Peoples' Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. Employees Provident Fund

Organization (supra) in writ petition and review read with

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nashik

Merchant Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. The Regional Provident Fund

Commissioner II (supra), approving the remand order and the

parameters specified by the Division Bench of this Court in the

review judgment, are binding on this Court and, therefore, the

present group of writ petitions needs to be disposed of in that

light. The contentions raised on behalf of the banks that the

judgments in the writ petition and review application in the case

of Pachora Peoples' Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. Employees Provident Fund

Organization (supra) are per incuriam due to ignorance of the

binding nature of settlement under section 18(3)(d) of the Act of

1947, is found by this Court to be unsustainable. A perusal of the

judgments of the Division Bench of this Court in the writ petition

and review application in the case of Pachora Peoples' Co-op. Bank

Ltd. v. Employees Provident Fund Organization (supra) shows that

KHUNTE

WPs-5154.16+16-Judgment 39/56

copious reference and quotations have been made by the Division

Bench of this Court from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of Indian Banks Association v. The Workmen of

Syndicate Bank and others (supra), whereby the modified award of

the Industrial Tribunal at Hyderabad was confirmed. In this

context, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel

appearing for the banks in the case of Narmada Bachao Andolan v.

State of M.P., AIR 2011 SC 1989 and other judgments can be no

avail because this Court is of the opinion that the said contention,

which was not raised before the Division Bench of this Court

regarding binding nature of award of the Industrial Tribunal

would have no effect on the findings rendered by the Division

Bench of this Court, as the parameters laid down in the review

judgment of the Division Bench of this Court clearly point to the

fact that no final conclusion has been given regarding the

applicability of the Act of 1952 and only the power of the

Authorities under the Act of 1952 to make enquiry, including

enquiry contemplated under section 7-A (1)(a) of the Act of 1952

pertaining to the very applicability of the said Act, has been

KHUNTE

WPs-5154.16+16-Judgment 40/56

recognized. Hence, the said contention regarding the

judgments of the Division Bench of this Court being per incuriam is

rejected.

25. The alternative contention raised on behalf of the

banks, regarding necessity to refer the issues raised on behalf of

the banks for consideration to a Full Bench of this Court, is also

without any substance. This Court has considered the specific

issues raised on behalf of the banks and it is found that the

aforementioned judgments of the Division Bench of this Court in

the case of Pachora Peoples' Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. Employees

Provident Fund Organization (supra) and the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nashik Merchant Cooperative

Bank Ltd. v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner II (supra)

cannot be said to be per incuriam and, therefore, there is no

question of any necessity to refer such issues to Full Bench of this

Court. There cannot be any quarrel with the proposition that even

a learned Single Judge can refer issues for consideration and

decision to a Full Bench of this Court directly, but once this Court

KHUNTE

WPs-5154.16+16-Judgment 41/56

has come to the conclusion that in the present cases there is no

necessity to make such a reference, the said proposition can be of

no assistance to the banks. Therefore, the judgments relied upon

by the learned counsel for the banks in this context do not need to

be discussed.

26. There is also reference made to judgments of this

Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding the question as to

what can be said to be ratio decidendi of a judgment, but the said

judgments do not need any discussion or consideration because

this Court has found that the judgments of the Division Bench of

this Court in writ petition and review in the case of Pachora

Peoples' Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. Employees Provident Fund Organization

(supra) as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the case of Nashik Merchant Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. The Regional

Provident Fund Commissioner II (supra) lay down a ratio that is

binding on this Court and that there is no question of the said

judgments not being binding, because they were allegedly

rendered on concessions made on behalf of the banks therein.



 KHUNTE





  WPs-5154.16+16-Judgment                                                 42/56

Accordingly, the said contention raised on behalf of the banks is

rejected.

27. It is important to refer to the fact that even while

approving the parameters laid down by the review judgment of

the Division Bench of this Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its

judgment in the case of Nashik Merchant Cooperative Bank Ltd. v.

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner II (supra) specifically

directed that the Provident Fund Authorities under the Act of 1952

would be at liberty to take decision afresh in the matters after

hearing the contesting parties, who also would be at liberty to

raise all contentions as may be available in law. Therefore, it

becomes clear that if the dispute in the present cases is also

remanded to the Provident Fund Authorities under the Act of

1952, to be taken up for consideration on the parameters laid

down by the Division Bench of this Court in its judgment in review

in the case of Pachora Peoples' Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. Employees

Provident Fund Organization (supra), all questions would be open

and they would be decided on material that would be placed on

record by rival parties, which could be enquired into by the

KHUNTE

WPs-5154.16+16-Judgment 43/56

Authorities as per the mandate of the Act of 1952. Such an enquiry

can certainly not be permitted to be thwarted at the threshold on

the basis of the said argument regarding binding nature of the

award of the Industrial Tribunal under section 18(3)(d) of the Act

of 1947.

28. In the light of the above, this Court is of the opinion

that the writ petitions in the present case deserve to be partly

allowed and all the cases deserve to be remanded to the Provident

Fund Commissioner for undertaking enquiry under section 7-A of

the Act of 1952, on the parameters laid down by the Division

Bench of this Court in the case of Pachora Peoples' Co-op. Bank Ltd.

v. Employees Provident Fund Organization (supra) quoted above,

including on the question of the applicability of the Act of 1952 to

the banks/employers in the present case as mandated under

section 7-A(1)(a) of the Act of 1952. On this basis, the writ

petitions are being disposed of individually herein below:-

(1) In the light of the above, Writ Petition No.5154 of 2016;

Sanmitra Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., Akola v.


 KHUNTE





  WPs-5154.16+16-Judgment                                                 44/56

Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and another, is

partly allowed. The impugned order passed by the

Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New

Delhi and order passed by the Assistant Provident Fund

Commissioner, Akola are quashed and set aside. The

dispute is remanded back to the Assistant Provident

Fund Commissioner, Akola to undertake enquiry under

section 7-A of the Act of 1952 in the light of the above

quoted parameters specifically laid down by the Division

Bench of this Court in review in the case of Pachora

Peoples' Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. Employees Provident Fund

Organization (supra).

(2) In the light of the above, Writ Petition No.142 of 2014;

Shri Keshav Urban Credit Co-op. Society Ltd., Shegaon

v. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, is partly

allowed. The impugned order passed by the Assistant

Provident Fund Commissioner, Akola is quashed and set

aside and the matter is remanded back to the Assistant

KHUNTE

WPs-5154.16+16-Judgment 45/56

Provident Fund Commissioner, Akola for holding fresh

enquiry under section 7-A of the Act of 1952 on the

basis of the above quoted parameters laid down by the

Division Bench of this Court in review in the case of

Pachora Peoples' Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. Employees Provident

Fund Organization (supra).

(3) In the light of the above, Writ Petition No.333 of 2011;

M/s. Baheti Automobiles v. Employees' Provident Fund

Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi and another, is partly

allowed. The impugned orders dated 09/12/2004 and

31/03/2005 passed by the Assistant Provident Fund

Commissioner, Nagpur, as also the impugned order

dated 03/09/2010 passed by the Employees' Provident

Fund Appellate Tribunal are quashed and set aside and

the matter is remanded back to the Assistant Provident

Fund Commissioner, Nagpur for holding fresh enquiry

under section 7-A of the Act of 1952 by applying the

above quoted parameters laid down by the Division

KHUNTE

WPs-5154.16+16-Judgment 46/56

Bench of this Court in review in the case of Pachora

Peoples' Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. Employees Provident Fund

Organization (supra).

(4) In the light of the above, Writ Petition No.1027 of 2011;

The Amravati Zilla Mahila Sahakari Bank Limited v. The

Employees' Assistant Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal

and another, is partly allowed. The impugned orders

dated 24/05/2004 and 30/07/2004 passed by the

Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Nagpur as also

the impugned order dated 07/01/2011 passed by the

Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal are

quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back

to the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Nagpur

for holding fresh enquiry under section 7-A of the Act of

1952 on the basis of the above quoted parameters laid

down by the Division Bench of this Court in review in

the case of Pachora Peoples' Co-op. Bank Ltd. v.

Employees Provident Fund Organization (supra).

KHUNTE

WPs-5154.16+16-Judgment 47/56

(5) In the light of the above, Writ Petition No.1106 of 2009;

Wardha Nagri Sahakari Adhikosh (Bank) Limited v. The

Regional/Assistant Provident Funds Commissioner, is

partly allowed. The impugned order passed by the

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Nagpur is

quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back

to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Nagpur

for holding fresh enquiry under section 7-A of the Act of

1952 on the basis of the above quoted parameters laid

down by the Division Bench of this Court in review in

the case of Pachora Peoples' Co-op. Bank Ltd. v.

Employees Provident Fund Organization (supra), quoted

above. The prayer made on behalf of the intervener i.e.

the Union of Employees to de-tag the present writ

petition from the bunch of present writ petitions is

rejected.

(6) In the light of the above, Writ Petition No.1125 of 2014;

The Akola Merchant Co-operative Bank Ltd., Akola v.



 KHUNTE





  WPs-5154.16+16-Judgment                                                  48/56

Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and another, is

partly allowed. The impugned order passed by the

Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Akola as also

the impugned order passed by the Employees Provident

Fund Appellate Tribunal are quashed and set aside and

the matter is remanded back to the Assistant Provident

Fund Commissioner, Akola for holding fresh enquiry

under section 7-A of the Act of 1952 as per the above

quoted parameters laid down by the Division Bench of

this Court in review in the case of Pachora Peoples' Co-

op. Bank Ltd. v. Employees Provident Fund Organization

(supra), quoted above.

(7) In the light of the above, Writ Petition No.3507 of 2013;

The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner v. The

Agrasen Nagari Sahakari Bank ltd., Akola, is partly

allowed. The impugned order passed by the Employees

Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal is quashed and set

aside. In view of the findings rendered above in this

KHUNTE

WPs-5154.16+16-Judgment 49/56

judgment, the order of the Assistant Provident Fund

Commissioner, Nagpur is also quashed and set aside

with a direction to the said Authority to conduct fresh

enquiry under section 7-A of the Act of 1952 as per the

above quoted parameters laid down by the Division

Bench of this Court in review in the case of Pachora

Peoples' Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. Employees Provident Fund

Organization (supra).

(8) In the light of the above, Writ Petition No.3654 of 2010;

The Central Board of Trustees, through The Assistant

Provident Fund Commissioner v. M/s. Abhinandan

Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., is partly allowed. The

impugned order passed by the Employees Provident

Fund Appellate Tribunal is quashed and set aside. In

view of the findings rendered above in this judgment,

the order of the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner,

Nagpur is also quashed and set aside with a direction to

the said Authority to conduct fresh enquiry under

KHUNTE

WPs-5154.16+16-Judgment 50/56

section 7-A of the Act of 1952 as per the above quoted

parameters laid down by the Division Bench of this

Court in review in the case of Pachora Peoples' Co-op.

Bank Ltd. v. Employees Provident Fund Organization

(supra).

(9) In the light of the above, Writ Petition No.3882 of 2014;

Anuradha Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. and another v.

Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, is partly

allowed. The impugned order passed by the Employees

Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal is quashed and set

aside. In view of the findings rendered above in this

judgment, the order of the Assistant Provident Fund

Commissioner, Nagpur is also quashed and set aside

with a direction to the said Authority to conduct fresh

enquiry under section 7-A of the Act of 1952 as per the

above quoted parameters laid down by the Division

Bench of this Court in review in the case of Pachora

Peoples' Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. Employees Provident Fund

Organization (supra).

KHUNTE

WPs-5154.16+16-Judgment 51/56

(10) In the light of the above, Writ Petition No.4926 of 2003;

The Anjangaon-Surji Nagari Sahakari Bank Limited v.

The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and

another, is partly allowed. The impugned order passed

by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Nagpur

is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to

the said Authority for fresh enquiry under section 7-A of

the Act of 1952 as per the above quoted parameters laid

down by the Division Bench of this Court in review in

the case of Pachora Peoples' Co-op. Bank Ltd. v.

Employees Provident Fund Organization (supra).

(11) In the light of the above, Writ Petition No.5032 of 2003;

The Amravati Merchants' Co-operative Bank Limited v.

The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and

another, is partly allowed. The impugned order passed

by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Nagpur

is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to

the said Authority for fresh enquiry under section 7-A of

KHUNTE

WPs-5154.16+16-Judgment 52/56

the Act of 1952 as per the above quoted parameters laid

down by the Division Bench of this Court in review in

the case of Pachora Peoples' Co-op. Bank Ltd. v.

Employees Provident Fund Organization (supra).

(12) In the light of the above, Writ Petition No.5226 of 2009;

The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner v. Jagruti

Bigar Shetaki Pat Purwatha Sahakari Sanstha Ltd., is

partly allowed. The impugned order passed by the

Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal is

quashed and set aside. In the light of the findings

rendered above, the order of the Assistant Provident

Fund Commissioner, Nagpur is also quashed and set

aside and the matter is remanded to the said Authority

for fresh enquiry under section 7-A of the Act of 1952 as

per the above quoted parameters laid down by the

Division Bench of this Court in review in the case of

Pachora Peoples' Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. Employees Provident

Fund Organization (supra).

KHUNTE

WPs-5154.16+16-Judgment 53/56

(13) In the light of the above, Writ Petition No.5566 of 2010;

The Central Board of Trustees through The Assistant

Provident Fund Commissioner v. The Vasant Nagri

Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, is partly allowed. The

impugned order passed by the Employees Provident

Fund Appellate Tribunal is quashed and set aside. In the

light of the findings rendered above, the order of the

Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Nagpur is also

quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to the

said Authority for fresh enquiry under section 7-A of the

Act of 1952 as per the above quoted parameters laid

down by the Division Bench of this Court in review in

the case of Pachora Peoples' Co-op. Bank Ltd. v.

Employees Provident Fund Organization (supra).

(14) In the light of the above, Writ Petition No.5576 of 2015;

Bharti Maind Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanstha and another v.

Central Board of Trustees and another, is partly allowed.

The impugned order passed by the Assistant Provident

KHUNTE

WPs-5154.16+16-Judgment 54/56

Fund Commissioner, Nagpur is quashed and set aside

and the matter is remanded to the said Authority for

fresh enquiry under section 7-A of the Act of 1952 as per

the above quoted parameters laid down by the Division

Bench of this Court in the review in the case of Pachora

Peoples' Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. Employees Provident Fund

Organization (supra).

(15) In the light of the above, Writ Petition No.5667 of 2009;

Shattarka Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanstha v. Assistant

Provident Funds Commissioner, is partly allowed and a

direction is given to the Assistant Provident Fund

Commissioner, Nagpur to hold proper enquiry in terms

of the notices issued under section 7-A of the Act of

1952 to the petitioner-Sanstha and to conduct such

enquiry as per the above quoted parameters laid down

by the Division Bench of this Court in review in the case

of Pachora Peoples' Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. Employees

Provident Fund Organization (supra).

KHUNTE

WPs-5154.16+16-Judgment 55/56

(16) In the light of the above, Writ Petition No.6149 of 2011;

The Amravati Zilla Mahila Sahakari Bank Limited v. The

Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Akola, is partly

allowed. The impugned order passed by the Assistant

Provident Fund Commissioner, Akola is quashed and set

aside and the matter is remanded to the said Authority

for fresh enquiry under section 7-A of the Act of 1952 as

per the above quoted parameters laid down by the

Division Bench of this Court in review in the case of

Pachora Peoples' Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. Employees Provident

Fund Organization (supra).

(17) In the light of the above, Writ Petition No.6191 of 2005;

Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner v. Bhartiya

Sindhu Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Akola, is partly

allowed. The impugned order passed by the Employees

Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal is quashed and set

aside. In view of the findings rendered above, the order

of the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Nagpur

KHUNTE

WPs-5154.16+16-Judgment 56/56

is also quashed and set aside and the matter is

remanded to the said Authority for fresh enquiry under

section 7-A of the Act of 1952 as per the above quoted

parameters laid down by the Division Bench of this

Court in review in the case of Pachora Peoples' Co-op.

Bank Ltd. v. Employees Provident Fund Organization

(supra).