Gujarat High Court
Chaudhary Hitendrabhai Amrutbhai vs The Regional Provident Fund ... on 18 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2030/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2030 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
CHAUDHARY HITENDRABHAI AMRUTBHAI
Versus
THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER II & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.PRAKASH.K.JANI assisted by MS NIKITA P RAO(12868) for the
Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR AV NAIR(5602) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 18/02/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Draft amendment is allowed. Amendment be carried out
forthwith.
2. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India Challenging the order passed by the respondent
No.1 dated 31.07.2024 whereby, liability of
Rs.1,85,52,525/- was imposed for not paying the
contribution for the Provident fund of the Contract
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2030/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2025
undefined
employees supplied by the petitioner to the Banaskantha
District Co-operative Milk Producers' Union Ltd.
3. At the outset, learned senior advocate Mr.Prakash Jani
has submitted that instead of filing the review
application under section 7(b), petition is filed before
this Court. Learned senior advocate Mr.Jani further
submits that as per the employee Provident Fund
Scheme, 1952 paragraph 79 (A) limitation is provided
for filing of the review application is of 45 days and
therefore, even if it would be filed, same would not be
entertained on the ground of delay. Learned senior
advocate Mr.Jani submits that during the course of
hearing in the 7(A) proceedings, the petitioner had
provided balance sheet and on the basis of the said
document, liability was imposed by presuming that the
classification of workmen during the year 2017 to 2021,
is as follows:-
Year Type of Worker Zone 1 Zone 2
Unskilled 7946 7738
2017 Semi-Skilled 8154 7946
Skilled 8388 8154
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2030/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2025
undefined
Year Type of Worker Zone 1 Zone 2
Unskilled 8117 7909
2018 Semi-Skilled 8325 8117
Skilled 8559 8325
Year Type of Worker Zone 1 Zone 2
Unskilled 8278 8070
2019 Semi-Skilled 8486 8278
Skilled 8720 8486
Year Type of Worker Zone 1 Zone 2
Unskilled 8645 8437
2020 Semi-Skilled 8853 8645
Skilled 9087 8853
Year Type of Worker Zone 1 Zone 2
Unskilled 9048 8840
2021 Semi-Skilled 9256 9048
Skilled 9490 9256
3.1. Learned senior advocate Mr.Jani has submitted that it
is true that opportunity was provided to produce the
documentary evidence, however, due to ignorance on
the part of present petitioner, only balance sheet was
provided and relying on the same, exorbitant amount of
Rs.1,85,52,525/- was fastened on the present petitioner
towards the payment of the contribution. Learned
senior advocate Mr.Jani submits that if opportunity
would be provided to the present petitioner to produce
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2030/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2025
undefined
the evidence to the Authority, justice would be served.
4. Learned advocate Mr.Nair, on the other hand has
submitted that as on date, no review application, neither
any delay is filed challenging the impugned order,
therefore, the petition may not be entertained at this
stage.
5. Considering the submission made by the learned
advocates for the respective parties, it transpires that
impugned order passed under section 7(A) of the
Employees Provident Fund Act is challenged by the
present petitioner, contending that the liability which
was imposed by presuming that the number of workers
working in the present petitioner establishment and
contribution is not paid for them by the petitioner.
Normally this Court would not entertain the petition
which is filed directly before this Court.
6. However, considering the peculiar fact that only on
presumption of strength of employees for different
years, the liability was fastened upon the petitioner,
therefore, this Court is of the view that if the opportunity
would be provided to the present petitioner by filing the
review application under section 7(b), then ends of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2030/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2025
undefined
justice would meet. In that circumstance, by invoking
the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, this Court directs the respondent
No.1 to decide the review on merits, if it would be filed
within a period of four weeks from today, by ignoring the
aspect of delay.
7. No coercive steps be taken qua present petitioner till the
first date of hearing of the review application. It is
clarified that this order would not be considered as a
precedent in any matter. Authority shall decide the
application on merits without being influenced by any
observation made herein.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
NIVYA A. NAIR
