Genevieve Rebeiro & Ors vs Central Provident Fund ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 2523 Cal

                   IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                  CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
                           APPELLATE SIDE


BEFORE:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur

                             WPA 28018 of 2014

                          Genevieve Rebeiro & Ors.

                                     Vs.

              Central Provident Fund Commissioner & Ors.



For the petitioners       : Mr. Shounak Mitra
                            Mr. Rishav Dutta

For the respondent no.6 : Mr. Soumabha Ghose

Mr. Soumalya Ganguly

For the P.F. Authorities : Mr. S. C. Prasad

Heard on : 28.01.2021

Judgment on : 06.04.2021

Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.:

1. The petitioners are employees of the respondent no.6 company. The

grievance of the petitioners is directed against the actions initiated

against the respondent no.6 company by the respondent provident

fund authorities.

2. The petitioners assail the letters dated 13 May, 2014, 26 August, 2014

and 16 September, 2014 issued by the respondent authorities. By the

impugned letters the respondent authorities have inter alia rejected

the exemption status of the respondent no.6 on the ground that the

respondent no.6 had failed to rectify the deficiencies in their proposal

for grant of such exemption. Moreover, by the impugned

communication dated 16 September, 2014 the respondent authorities

have also directed the respondent no.6 to comply with their

mandatory obligations under the Employees Provident Fund and

Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "the

Act").

3. The brief facts of this case are that the petitioners as employees of the

respondent no.6 company seek continuance of an exemption status

which was being enjoyed by the respondent no.6 company from

operation of the scheme under the Act. It is alleged on behalf of the

petitioners that the pension fund being run and operated by the

respondent no.7 is more beneficial to the employees of the respondent

no.6 company and the respondent no.6 company be exempted from

the provisions of the Act. The petitioners further allege that they are

enjoying a scheme under the Life Insurance Corporation which is far

more advantageous than that provided by the respondent authorities.

It is further alleged that the scheme of the respondent no.6 also

provides the employees with a better standard of living. It is also

alleged that the amount of pension received by the employees of the

respondent no.6 post retirement from the fund maintained by the

respondent no.7 would be more than that which an employee would

be entitled to under the Act. The petitioners also assail the

cancellation of the exemption status of the respondent no.6 company

by the respondent authorities.

4. On behalf of the respondent authorities it is submitted that the

petition is not maintainable since it has been filed by employees of the

respondent no.6 company who have no locus to challenge the

impugned actions which are directed only against the respondent no.6

company. It is also submitted that the EPS Scheme is far more

advantageous than the scheme under the Life Insurance Corporation.

It is said that the scheme under the EPS Scheme 1995 provides for

more benefits to its members than the scheme of the LIC. It is further

alleged that the respondent no.6 company has caused and instigated

the petitioners to file this writ petition. It is also alleged that the

respondent no.6 is in violation of all their mandatory obligations

under the Act and the EPS Scheme 1995.

5. This petition has been pending since 2014. Upon filing of this petition,

the petitioners had obtained an interim order dated 9 September,

2015 whereby the respondent authorities were restrained from taking

any coercive steps against the respondent no.6 company.

6. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties. It is

true that the respondent no.6 was enjoying an exemption status

under the provisions of the Act. Thereafter, the respondent no.6 had

made a proposal for extension of such exemption which was duly

considered by the respondent provident fund authorities and was

rejected. The grounds for rejection of the exemption have been

recorded in the impugned letters. It appears that the proposal of the

respondent no.6 was primarily rejected on the ground that the

respondent no.6 had failed to rectify the deficiencies in their proposal

and had also failed to submit any fresh proposal in accordance with

law.

7. I am of the view that there are no grounds made out in this petition

justifying any interference with the impugned communications issued

by the respondent provident fund authorities. I am also of the view

that the petitioners have no right to seek an extension of the

exemption status which was being enjoyed by the respondent no.6

establishment. I find that the petitioners have been unable to

demonstrate any legal entitlement or right which could conceivably

accrue in their favour to maintain such a petition. The impugned

actions of the respondent authorities are all directed only against the

respondent no.6 establishment. I find that it is only the respondent

no.6 establishment which can claim any infringement of their rights.

8. Moreover and in any event, I am of the view that there are no grounds

warranting any interference with the impugned actions of the

respondent authorities. Neither the petitioners nor the respondent

no.6 have been able to confirm or satisfy the respondent authorities

as to how the pension fund has been invested or not. In any event, the

respondent no.6 has not been able to rectify the deficiencies that had

been pointed out to them by the respondent provident fund

authorities within the stipulated time period. I also find that the

respondent no.6 company had failed and neglected to comply with

their obligation to rectify the deficiencies in the proposal submitted by

them. I find that the impugned actions of the respondent provident

fund authorities are in accordance with law and there are no grounds

whatsoever to interfere with the same. The petitioners as employees of

the respondent no.6 cannot challenge the rejection of the application

for grant of exemption of the respondent no.6 under paragraph 39 of

the 1995 Scheme. I find that there are no grounds to compel the

respondent provident fund authorities to grant continuance of an

exemption status to the respondent no.6. I also find no reason to

interfere with any of the impugned letters addressed to the respondent

no.6 company. I find no illegality nor perversity nor contravention of

any law in the impugned actions of the respondent authorities.

9. In view of the aforesaid, I find no merit in this petition. Accordingly,

WPA 28018 of 2014 is dismissed with costs assessed at Rs.5 lacs (Five

lacs) to be paid by the petitioners jointly and/or severally to the

respondent no.1. All connected interlocutory applications also stand

disposed off. Interim orders are vacated.

10. Urgent certified photostat copies of this judgment, if applied for, be

given to the parties upon compliance with all necessary formalities.

(Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.)