Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
& Anr vs The West Bengal Power Development ... on 25 November, 2021
25.11.2021
06
ns/pg Ct.16
F.M.A. 1379 of 2017
With
I.A. CAN 1 of 2017 (Old CAN 6025 of 2017)
Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Damage)
& Anr.
Vs.
The West Bengal Power Development Corporation
Limited & Ors.
Mr. Shiv Chandra Prasad,
Mr. Nikhil Kumar Gupta ....... for the appellants.
Mr. Ranjay De,
Mr. B. Banerjee ... for the respondent no.1.
This intra-Court mandamus appeal has been
filed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner
(Damage), Sub-Regional Office, Howrah being aggrieved
by the order dated 19th April, 2017 passed in W.P. No.
2045(W) of 2017 filed by the West Bengal Power
Development Corporation Limited, a Government of West
Bengal enterprise, being the 1st respondent herein.
The order impugned in this appeal is an
interlocutory order and the appellants / organisation is
aggrieved by an observation made in the order and a
direction issued in the order. The observation is to the
effect that the appellants / organisation acted with undue
haste and proceeded in the matter of recovery of the
amount from the State Bank of India. The second
grievance is with regard to a direction issued to the
Provident Fund authorities to keep the amount recovered
from the State Bank of India in a short-term fixed deposit.
The learned counsel appearing for the
appellants / organisation submitted that the appellants /
organisation has followed the correct procedure stipulated
under the Act and there has been no undue haste shown
in the matter of recovery. It is submitted that the
appellants / organisation has filed the affidavit-in-
opposition in the writ petition wherein the entire facts are
clearly being set out and documents have also been
placed before the Court and today a supplementary
affidavit has also been filed by the appellants. Further,
the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the
amounts which have been recovered from the employer
are the dues payable to the innocent employees /
workmen and directing the same to be deposited in a
nationalised bank would be prejudicial to the interest of
the workmen.
So far as the first contention is concerned, we
are in agreement with the learned counsel for the
appellants that at an interlocutory stage, a positive
finding or observation would not auger well because the
final adjudication is yet to be completed. Therefore, such
finding is vacated.
So far as the direction to keep the recovered
money in a fixed deposit is concerned, we find, at this
juncture, the order need not be disturbed, which was
passed as early as in 2017 for more than one reason.
Firstly, the amount is now secured and subject to the
outcome of the writ petition, which can always be
disbursed in the manner known to law. Secondly, as per
the direction issued by the learned Single Bench, the
affidavits have been exchanged and the writ petition is
ripe for hearing. Therefore, we are inclined to make a
request to the learned Writ Court to hear the writ petition
at the earliest convenience and if feasible before the Court
closes for Christmas vacation, 2021.
In the result, the writ appeal is partly allowed
and the observation made with regard to undue haste in
the matter of recovery of amount stands vacated and in
respect of the amount which has been directed to be
invested in a nationalised bank, the same shall continue
and abide by the ultimate result in the writ petition. We
grant liberty to the learned counsel of either side to place
the copy of this judgment and order before the
appropriate Learned Single Bench so that the matter can
be heard at an early date.
In view of the observations made hereinabove,
nothing survives for decision in the application being I.A.
CAN 1 of 2017 (Old CAN 6025 of 2017) and the same is
disposed of without any order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if
applied for, be given to the parties expeditiously upon
compliance of all legal formalities.
( T. S. Sivagnanam, J.)
(Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)
