Delhi High Court
M/S Profacilities Services Pvt ... vs Central Board Of Trustees (Cbt) ... on 14 November, 2017
$~32
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 14th November, 2017
+ W.P.(C) 10050/2017
M/S PROFACILITIES SERVICES PVT LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Keshav Mohan and Mr. Piyush
Choudhary, Advocates
versus
CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES (CBT)
AND ANR ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR
CHANDER SHEKHAR, J. (ORAL)
CM No. 41001/2017
Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 10050/2017 and CM No. 41000/2017
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the
Constitution of India for quashing of the impugned order dated 19.09.2017
passed by Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal
(CGIT), Delhi in Appeal No. D-1/06/2017.
2. Notice. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the
respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is
a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, engaged in a
business of Property Management covered under the Employees' Provident
Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952 vide Code No.,
DSSHD/936818 and is complying with the provisions of Act.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that an inquiry
under Section 7A of the Act was initiated against the petitioner vide
summon dated 29.09.2015 for assessment of dues for the period from April
2014 to March 2015, for alleged non-compliance of the Act in respect of
workers engaged through contractors, during the course of inquiry,
authorised representative of the petitioner filed each and every documents
as desired by the said authority. He also submitted that the establishment
had produced the details of contractors with a request to summon those
contractors as witnesses, but the respondent/inquiry officer was not
inclined on issuing notice to the contractors for recording their statements.
He further submitted that the respondent also failed to issue notice to the
establishment, which are independently covered under the Act and shifted
the burden upon the petitioner to produce the PF Code No. of those
establishments.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the
respondent has not supplied the copy of the report dated 24.04.2017 to the
petitioner establishment, upon which the entire basis of the impugned order
stands. He has also submitted that a copy of the report dated 24.04.2017
has not been supplied by the respondent to them. It is also stated by
learned counsel for the petitioner that the authorised representative of the
petitioner regularly appeared before the 7A authority, however no report
was supplied to them during the course of the proceedings to file objections
to the same.
6. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
assessing officer retyped the calculations made by the Enforcement Officer
(EO) in the impugned order without examining its contents and without
giving a chance to negate the contents of the report and assessed the dues
on the basis of assumption and presumptions.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that as per the
relevant provisions of the Act, dues shall be calculated on basic wages,
dearness allowances and retaining allowances, but in the present case the
7A authority took 70% of the total amount paid as wages for Provident
Fund deductions and accordingly dues were calculated. It is also submitted
that the assessing officer ignored the relevant document like salary sheet
and attendance sheet.
8. During the course of the arguments, learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that there is lack of reasoning given in the impugned
order to deposit 60% of the amount, as a pre deposit under Section 7-O of
the Act.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is
ready to deposit 25% of the amount in cash and remaining 25% amount
through bank guarantee with the Appellate Authority i.e. Central
Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court No.1.
10. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and relied upon
the certain judgments wherein the amount varied from 25% to 75%.
However, at the end, the counsel for the respondent submitted that without
prejudice to the contentions of the parties and without it being a precedent,
if the petitioner deposits 25% of the amount in cash and remaining 25%
through bank guarantee with the appellate authority, as is suggested by the
learned counsel for the petitioner, he has no objection if the appeal is heard.
11. Accordingly, in view of the above facts and in the interest of justice,
the impugned order dated 19.09.2017 stands modified to the extent that the
amount of the pre-deposit stands reduced from 60% to 50% out of which
25% shall be deposited by the petitioner in cash and the other 25% shall be
furnished by the petitioner in the form of the bank guarantee within six
weeks. However, this order shall not be construed as precedent.
12. The appeal shall be heard only after the deposit of the said amount.
However, parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 23.11.2017.
13. Accordingly, the present petition as well as the pending applications
are disposed of.
CHANDER SHEKHAR, J
NOVEMBER 14, 2017
b
